Olaparib-Induced Mitochondrial Metabolic Collapse Promotes Apoptotic Priming and Overcomes Therapeutic Resistance in CLL

Introduction

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia in Western countries and constitutes a rising global clinical challenge as populations age and treatment-resistant disease increases [2,3]. CLL is defined by the progressive clonal accumulation of mature CD5⁺CD19⁺ B lymphocytes in peripheral blood, bone marrow, and lymphoid tissues, where malignant cells exhibit sustained survival through B-cell receptor (BCR) signalling, anti-apoptotic buffering, and mitochondrial metabolic dependence [4].

Overview of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)

Clinically, CLL follows a heterogeneous trajectory, ranging from indolent disease to aggressive transformation, with manifestations including lymphocytosis, lymphadenopathy, splenomegaly, cytopenias, and systemic immune dysregulation [5]. Pathologically, CLL cells are highly reliant on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) and display metabolic plasticity that enables adaptation to microenvironmental stress, therapeutic pressure, and nutrient limitations [6,7]. Although genetic predisposition contributes to disease risk, non-genetic drivers—including mitochondrial bioenergetic rewiring, ROS imbalance, and apoptosis evasion—critically shape disease progression and therapy responsiveness [8,9].

Evolution of First-Line Therapies: Transition from Immunochemotherapy to BTKi and BCL2i

Historically, chemo-immunotherapy combinations such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (FCR) were standard first-line regimens, offering durable responses in select patients but limited by toxicity, incomplete eradication of disease, and relapse in high-risk genetic subgroups [10,11]. The therapeutic landscape shifted with the introduction of targeted agents, including BTK inhibitors (BTKi) such as ibrutinib and acalabrutinib, and BCL2 inhibitors (BCL2i) such as venetoclax, which markedly improved survival, reduced systemic toxicity, and redefined first- line therapy [12-14]. Nevertheless, despite deep initial remissions, CLL remains largely incurable due to incomplete clearance of therapy-tolerant subclones and progressive resistance [5,15].

Current Clinical Challenges: Relapse, Resistance, and Disease Persistence

Acquired resistance to BTKi and BCL2i therapies is best characterized by BTK and PLCG2 mutations (conferring BTKi resistance), BCL2 G101V mutation (conferring venetoclax resistance), and cytogenetic abnormalities including del(8p), gain2p, gain1q, and amp1q [16,17]. However, accumulating evidence reveals additional non-genetic resistance programs involving mitochondrial dysfunction, altered cristae architecture, impaired OXPHOS efficiency, elevated mitochondrial ROS (mtROS), and changes in BCL2 mitochondrial binding dynamics, all of which blunt apoptotic priming and therapeutic efficacy [6,18,19]. These observations collectively support mitochondrial metabolism as a convergent, actionable vulnerability in relapsed or drug-tolerant CLL.

Rationale for Targeting Mitochondrial Metabolism in CLL

Given the central role of mitochondria in leukemia survival, redox balance, and apoptotic thresholding, disruption of mitochondrial bioenergetics represents a rational strategy for sensitizing CLL to targeted therapies, particularly in resistant disease states [9,20,21]. PARP inhibitors such as olaparib, originally developed to exploit DNA repair deficiency, have more recently been implicated in inducing mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction through PARP1- independent pathways, including NAD⁺ depletion, impaired ETC complex stability, mitochondrial membrane depolarization, and ROS-driven energetic collapse [1,20,22]. This establishes a strong biological premise for investigating olaparib-based combinatorial regimens to overcome BTKi/BCL2i resistance by destabilizing mitochondrial metabolic resilience, apoptotic buffering, and survival signalling [1,23]. In parallel, emerging studies highlight the importance of immune dysfunction in CLL progression, including enrichment of innate immune and immunosuppressive phenotypes, indicating that mitochondrial stress may further modulate neuro-immune and tumor-immune crosstalk under therapeutic pressure [24]. Systems-level interrogation combining differential expression analysis, metabolic profiling, network modeling, and drug synergy frameworks provides a powerful strategy for identifying mitochondrial vulnerabilities that can be clinically co-targeted for precision medicine [25,26]. Together, these findings support a metabolism-guided therapeutic paradigm wherein olaparib functions not solely as a DNA repair inhibitor but as a mitochondrial metabolic disruptor, priming CLL cells for enhanced sensitivity to BTKi and BCL2i therapies, and enabling translational drug-repurposing strategies in resistant disease.

Genetic and Non-Genetic Mechanisms of Resistance to Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapy resistance in CLL arises from both genomic lesions that directly disrupt drug targets and non-genetic adaptations that remodel mitochondrial survival programs, redox homeostasis, and apoptotic thresholds [8,16].

Canonical Genetic Drivers of Resistance

The most well-characterized BTKi resistance mechanisms involve somatic mutations in BTK (e.g., C481S) that prevent irreversible inhibitor binding, and gain-of-function mutations in PLCG2 that reactivate BCR signaling downstream of BTK inhibition [12,16]. Resistance to BCL2 inhibition, particularly to venetoclax, is predominantly driven by mutations in BCL2 (e.g., G101V, D103Y) that reduce drug affinity while preserving anti-apoptotic activity [13]. Recurrent cytogenetic lesions—including del(8p), gain(2p), gain(1q), and amp(1q)—further contribute to therapeutic escape by amplifying alternative survival networks and altering mitochondrial dependency programs [17,18]. These genomic events collectively enable persistent leukemic survival despite pharmacologic blockade of BTK or BCL2, reinforcing the need for orthogonal therapeutic strategies [27].

Mitochondrial Contributors to Therapeutic Failure

Beyond canonical mutations, CLL cells exploit mitochondrial metabolic plasticity to maintain survival under targeted therapy pressure [6,19].

Disruption of Oxidative Phosphorylation (OXPHOS)

Resistant CLL subclones display altered mitochondrial oxygen consumption rates (OCR), increased reliance on fatty acid oxidation, and compensatory ETC rewiring that preserves ATP levels even when BTK/BCL2 signalling is inhibited [6,15].

Structural and Morphological Alterations in Mitochondria

Drug-tolerant CLL cells frequently exhibit cristae re-modelling, swollen mitochondrial matrices, and disrupted inner membrane architecture, phenotypes associated with impaired electron flow and increased ROS production [20,21].

Modifications in BCL2 Mitochondrial Binding Domains

Mutations or post-translational modifications affecting BCL2’s BH3-binding groove or mitochondrial tethering domains alter its interaction with VDAC and BAX/BAK complexes, reducing apoptotic priming and enabling survival despite venetoclax exposure [9,18].

Therapeutic Implications of Mitochondrial Dysfunction

Given that mitochondrial integrity and bioenergetic output directly regulate apoptotic thresholds, therapies capable of destabilizing OXPHOS, depolarizing mitochondrial membranes, or amplifying mtROS can resensitize resistant CLL cells to BTKi/BCL2i regimens [9,20,23]. These insights support a metabolic co-targeting paradigm wherein mitochondrial stress induction functions as a critical vulnerability for combination therapy development [25].

Figure 1: Genetic and Non-Genetic Mechanisms of Resistance to Targeted Therapie

Figure 1 targeted therapy resistance in CLL is driven by genetic lesions and non-genetic mitochondrial adaptations. BTKi resistance involves BTK C481S mutations that block covalent inhibitor binding and PLCG2 gain-of-function mutations that restore downstream signalling, resulting in BCR pathway reactivation. Venetoclax resistance is mediated by BCL2 mutations (G101V, D103Y) that reduce drug affinity while retaining anti- apoptotic function, often co-occurring with cytogenetic alterations such as del(8p), gain(2p), gain/amp(1q) that reinforce alternative survival circuits. Non-genetic resistance includes OXPHOS disruption, fatty acid oxidation dependence, ETC rewiring to sustain ATP, cristae remodelling, matrix swelling, and elevated mtROS, collectively increasing survival and lowering apoptotic priming. Therapeutic strategies focus on OXPHOS destabilization, membrane depolarization, and mtROS amplification to resensitize cells in mitochondria-targeted combinations with BTK/BCL2 inhibitors.

Olaparib as a Sensitizer of BTK and BCL2 Inhibition

Olaparib is a first-in-class PARP inhibitor originally developed to exploit homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair deficiency; however, emerging evidence indicates that its antileukemic activity in CLL is mediated through mitochondrial metabolic collapse independent of PARP1 inhibition [1,22].

Clinical Background of Olaparib

Olaparib (AZD2281) functions by catalytic PARP trapping and NAD⁺ consumption blockade, and is clinically approved for multiple solid tumors, including BRCA-mutant ovarian, breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancers [22,28]. Recent studies show that olaparib also induces mitochondrial membrane depolarization, disrupts ETC complex stability, and promotes metabolic exhaustion in non-HR-deficient malignancies, suggesting broader repurposing potential beyond DNA repair-driven synthetic lethality [15,20].

Sensitization of CLL Cells to BTKi and BCL2i

Transcriptomic and functional profiling demonstrate that olaparib suppresses mitochondrial respiration (OCR), depletes ATP, desta- bilizes ETC complexes (I–IV), and elevates mitochondrial ROS, cumulatively priming CLL cells for apoptosis when co-adminis- tered with BTKi (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib) or BCL2i (venetoclax) [6,1]. Synergy analyses reveal enhanced mitochondrial apoptot- ic priming, increased cytochrome-c release, and loss of energet- ic compensation, selectively targeting therapy-tolerant leukemic populations [9,23].

Independence from PARP1-Mediated DNA Damage Signalling

Importantly, genetic silencing of PARP1 does not abrogate olapar- ib-mediated sensitization, confirming that the drug’s antileukemic mechanism in CLL is PARP1-independent and instead driven by mitochondrial dysfunction, NAD⁺ depletion, and metabolic insuf- ficiency rather than classical DNA repair blockade or transcrip- tional regulation [1,29]. These findings distinguish olaparib from conventional PARP inhibitor paradigms and identify mitochondri- al metabolic fragility as the dominant driver of therapeutic sensi- tization [19].

Mechanistic Basis: PARP1-Independent Mitochondrial Metabolic Dysfunction

Accumulating evidence indicates that therapeutic sensitization by olaparib in hematologic malignancies can occur independently of canonical PARP1-mediated DNA damage signalling, instead driven by mitochondrial metabolic reprogramming and bioenergetic collapse [1,22]. This paradigm is particularly relevant in CLL, where mitochondrial integrity functions as a core determinant of apoptotic threshold regulation and drug tolerance [6,9].

Alterations in Mitochondrial Bioenergetics

Impairment of OXPHOS and ATP Production

Drug-tolerant CLL cells exhibit reduced mitochondrial oxygen consumption rates (OCR), diminished oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) efficiency, and progressive depletion of ATP reserves following olaparib exposure, even in the absence of PARP1 inhibition [6,15]. Loss of OXPHOS-driven ATP production disrupts energetic compensation programs that normally sustain survival under BTK or BCL2 blockade [19,23].

Dysregulation of TCA Cycle Flux

Resistant CLL states demonstrate aberrant tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle dynamics, including impaired citrate export, α-ketoglutarate insufficiency, and accumulation of succinate and fumarate— oncometabolites that inhibit mitochondrial dehydrogenases and promote replication stress tolerance [19,25]. These disruptions indicate suppressed TCA cycle flux and a shift toward anaplerotic dependence on glutamine and fatty acid oxidation [6,15].

Perturbation of Mitochondrial Electron Transport Chain (ETC) Components

Olaparib induces destabilization of ETC complexes I–IV, downregulation of NADH dehydrogenase subunits, and impaired electron flow through cytochrome-c oxidase, cumulatively reducing mitochondrial membrane potential (Δψm) [15,20]. This ETC perturbation occurs without PARP1 dependency and directly compromises proton-gradient-driven ATP synthesis [1,22].

Mitochondrial Reactive Oxygen Species (mtROS) and Redox Imbalance

Mitochondrial dysfunction in therapy-tolerant leukemia cells is accompanied by excessive generation of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (mtROS), impaired glutathione recycling, and depletion of NAD⁺/NADH redox buffers, leading to a sustained oxidative state [20,23]. Elevated mtROS promotes redox imbalance, damages mitochondrial lipids and proteins, and amplifies mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization (MOMP) susceptibility [19,20].

Metabolic Collapse Leading to Apoptotic Priming

Bioenergetic collapse—defined by simultaneous loss of OXPHOS, suppressed TCA flux, ATP depletion, and mtROS accumulation— drives mitochondrial depolarization, cytochrome-c release, and increased BAX/BAK activation, collectively enhancing apoptotic priming [9,23]. This metabolic exhaustion removes survival advantages of resistant subclones and creates a permissive state for BTKi- or BCL2i-mediated apoptosis [6,15].

Crosstalk Between Metabolic Dysfunction and BCL2/ BTK Pathways

Mitochondrial stress interfaces with anti-apoptotic and BCR-sig- nalling pathways. Loss of Δψm disrupts BCL2 binding to VDAC1 on the outer mitochondrial membrane, weakening its sequestration of pro-apoptotic effectors [9,18]. In parallel, ATP depletion and mtROS elevation impair BTK-dependent mitochondrial survival signalling and reduce phosphorylation-driven feedback loops that maintain leukemic persistence [19,23]. These interconnected fail- ures explain the molecular basis of olaparib’s ability to resensitize CLL cells to BTKi and BCL2i therapy through a PARP1-indepen- dent mitochondrial metabolic vulnerability rather than DNA repair blockade [1,22].

Figure 2: Mechanistic Basis: PARP1-Independent Mitochondrial Metabolic Dysfunction

(Alt text) Infographic illustrating PARP1-independent mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction induced by olaparib in CLL cells. At the top, Olaparib is shown as a PARP1-independent trigger. Three main panels depict mechanisms:

(i) Alterations in mitochondrial bioenergetics showing impaired OXPHOS, ATP depletion, TCA cycle dysregulation (citrate ↓, α-KG ↓, succinate ↑, fumarate ↑), and ETC disruption

(ii) Mitochondrial ROS and redox imbalance with increased mtROS, NAD⁺/NADH depletion, and oxidative stress

(iii) Crosstalk with BCL2/BTK pathways showing BCL2/VDAC dissociation, ATP loss, impaired BTK signalling, and increased apoptotic priming. Arrows converge on metabolic collapse leading to PARP1-independent mitochondrial vulnerability and apoptosis.

Experimental Evidence and Analytical Approaches

Cellular Models and Patient-Derived CLL Samples

Experimental validation of olaparib-mediated sensitization has primarily employed MEC-1, HG-3, and Eµ-TCL1 transgenic CLL cell systems, which faithfully model B-cell receptor (BCR) dependency, apoptotic tolerance, and mitochondrial metabolic rewiring observed in relapsed disease [6,17]. Complementary analyses using freshly isolated CD19⁺ CLL cells from peripheral blood of BTKi- or BCL2i-exposed patients have demonstrated conserved metabolic liabilities, supporting clinical translatability [1,30].

Metabolic Profiling (Seahorse, OCR/ECAR, and Metabolomics)

Mitochondrial respiration and glycolytic compensation were quantified using extracellular flux analysis (Seahorse XF), revealing marked suppression of basal and maximal oxygen consumption rate (OCR), ATP-linked respiration, and spare respiratory capacity after olaparib treatment, with minimal effects on ECAR-driven glycolytic rescue [6,15]. Mass-spectrometry-based metabolomic profiling identified reduced citrate/isocitrate abundance, impaired α-ketoglutarate flux, and accumulation of succinate—indicative of TCA bottlenecks and ETC-dependent redox collapse [20,25].

Mitochondrial Structural Analysis

High-resolution transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and TOMM20-based confocal imaging revealed fragmented mitochondrial networks, disrupted cristae organization, and reduced mitochondrial mass in olaparib-exposed CLL cells, phenocopying mitochondrial stress states that lower apoptotic threshold and enhance BH3-protein activation [15,20].

Genetic Knockout/Knockdown Validation for PARP1 Independence

CRISPR-Cas9 ablation of PARP1 and shRNA knockdown models confirmed that olaparib-induced bioenergetic failure persisted despite complete loss of PARP1 protein or activity, excluding PARP1-trapping or DNA damage-checkpoint mediation and reinforcing a noncanonical mechanism rooted in mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction [1,22].

Synergy and Drug-Response Quantification

Synergy between olaparib and ibrutinib (BTKi) or venetoclax (BCL2i) was quantified using Chou-Talalay combination index (CI) modelling and Bliss independence scoring, demonstrating CI < 1 across multiple dose matrices and enhanced apoptotic induction via BAX/BAK-dependent MOMP, supporting strong pharmacologic cooperation [9,23,31].

Clinical Implications

Overcoming BTKi and BCL2i Resistance Through Metabolic Vulnerabilities

The demonstration that olaparib lowers leukemic persistence by disabling OXPHOS-driven ATP compensation, disrupting BCL2-VDAC1 binding stability, and impairing BTK-mediated mitochondrial survival signaling highlights a druggable metabolic vulnerability that bypasses genomic mutation-defined resistance states [1,9,19].

Potential for Combination Therapy Incorporating PARP Inhibitors

These findings provide mechanistic justification for olaparib integration into BTKi- or venetoclax-containing regimens to prevent or reverse drug tolerance, particularly in patients lacking canonical HR-deficiency but exhibiting mitochondrial stress- responsive apoptotic priming, suggesting broader applicability than BRCA-restricted PARP paradigms [1,28].

Biomarker Opportunities (Mitochondrial Metabolic Stress Signatures)

The consistent induction of mtROS imbalance, Δψm collapse, reduced NAD⁺/NADH buffering, and suppressed ETC complex integrity supports development of metabolic stress biomarkers (e.g., mitochondrial OCR suppression, Complex I/IV destabilization, and succinate accumulation) as predictive correlates of combination responsiveness in relapsed CLL [15,20,25].

                     Table: Clinical Implications of Targeting Metabolic Vulnerabilities in CLL

Alt text: Table summarizing clinical implications of targeting metabolic vulnerabilities in CLL:

(i) Overcoming BTKi/BCL2i resistance – olaparib disrupts OXPHOS, BCL2–VDAC1 binding, and BTK-dependent survival

(ii) Combination therapy – olaparib enhances apoptosis with BTKi or venetoclax, beyond BRCA-mutant cases

(iii) Biomarkers – mtROS elevation, Δψm collapse, NAD⁺/ NADH depletion, and ETC destabilization indicate therapy responsiveness.

Limitations, Challenges & Knowledge Gaps

Translational Barriers

Although preclinical synergy is reproducible, pharmacologic in- tegration faces translational constraints including myelosuppres- sion risk, metabolic rescue by stromal microenvironments, and incomplete mapping of patient-specific metabolic compensation programs [6,32].

Heterogeneity of Metabolic Adaptations in Relapsed CLL

Metabolic adaptations in BTKi- or venetoclax-relapsed CLL are highly heterogeneous, involving patient-specific reliance on fatty acid oxidation (FAO), glutamine anaplerosis, or mitochondrial biogenesis, which may alter degree of sensitization to ETC collapse, necessitating refined metabolic sub-stratification [19,25].

Long-Term Impact of Mitochondrial Targeting

The durability of mitochondrial co-targeting remains unclear, including whether chronic mitochondrial inhibition could select for oxidative-stress-resilient subclones or impact normal B-cell bioenergetics in the long term [9,23].

Future Directions

Targeting Mitochondrial Plasticity and Metabolic Reprogramming

Next-generation strategies should focus on disabling mitochondrial plasticity through co-targeting biogenesis (PGC-1α, TFAM), FAO dependency, or Complex I metabolic escape programs to prevent energetic rescue following PARP-induced stress [25,33].

Refinement of Patient Stratification Strategies

Integration of allele-resolved genomic markers with mitochondrial metabolic phenotyping (OCR, ETC complex stability, mtROS burden) may enable precision subtyping for optimal deployment of BTKi-BCL2i-PARPi combinations [28].

Next-Generation Metabolic and Apoptotic Co-Targeting Approaches

Future therapeutic designs may incorporate BH3-mimetic plus metabolic co-inhibition frameworks to directly enforce BAX/BAK activation in mitochondrially exhausted leukemia, expanding beyond DNA-repair-centric PARP inhibitor response models [9,23,31].

Results Section

Experimental Evidence and Analytical Approaches

Experimental validation of olaparib-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction was performed using established and orthogonal analytic systems. Human CLL cellular models and primary patient-derived CD5+ B-lymphocytes were used to ensure disease- specific metabolic representation [1,34]. Metabolic profiling via Seahorse XF assays revealed a significant decline in mitochondrial oxygen consumption rate (OCR) without proportional ECAR compensation, indicating a true bioenergetic collapse rather than a glycolytic shift [1,28,35]. Untargeted metabolomics confirmed reduced citrate–α-ketoglutarate flux and succinate accumulation, supporting TCA cycle impairment and anaplerotic insufficiency [36,37]. Immunoblot and ETC proteomic mapping demonstrated downregulation of complex I/III/V subunits and disrupted mitochondrial membrane potential [1].

Mitochondrial structural integrity analysis using electron microscopy and TOM20-based immunofluorescence revealed fragmented cristae architecture and loss of elongated mitochondrial networks, consistent with metabolic and respiratory dysfunction [1]. CRISPR-mediated PARP1 knockout demonstrated that olaparib’s sensitization effect persisted despite complete PARP1 depletion, validating a PARP1-independent mechanism [1,38]. Drug-response quantification revealed strong synergy between olaparib + ibrutinib (BTKi) and olaparib + venetoclax (BCL2i), with combination index (CI) values < 0.7 across resistant models, indicating non-additive therapeutic benefit [1]. Collectively, the results confirm that mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction is a driver of therapeutic sensitization and a rational co-targeting axis in resistant CLL.

Conclusion

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia remains clinically challenging due to inevitable relapse and the multifactorial evolution of resistance to BTK and BCL2 inhibition [21]. Converging genomic, epigenetic, and metabolic evidence now underscores mitochondria as both a driver of therapeutic escape and an actionable vulnerability [1]. The current mechanistic framework demonstrates that olaparib reprograms CLL bioenergetic fitness through a PARP1-independent axis, inducing OXPHOS suppression, TCA cycle derailment, electron transport chain perturbation, and mtROS-driven redox collapse, ultimately lowering the apoptotic threshold of leukemic B cells [1,28]. This metabolic crisis intersects functionally with BTK and BCL2 survival circuitry, providing a biologically rational basis for drug sensitization and combination therapy.

Experimental systems—including patient-derived CLL cells, mitochondrial flux assays, metabolomics, structural organelle profiling, and PARP1 genetic ablation—collectively validate that the observed metabolic collapse is uncoupled from canonical DNA-repair inhibition, positioning olaparib as a non-traditional mitochondrial disruptor rather than a classical PARP1 dependency modulator [1,35,37]. These insights expand the therapeutic paradigm beyond DNA damage–centric synthetic lethality and align with emerging precision-oncology strategies that exploit metabolic liabilities in hematologic malignancies [39,40]. Despite its promise, translational deployment faces barriers, including metabolic heterogeneity in relapsed disease, incomplete mapping of mitochondrial adaptive states, and limited long-term safety knowledge surrounding sustained mitochondrial targeting [40,41]. Future work should therefore prioritize

(i) Dissection of mitochondrial plasticity networks,

(ii) Integration of metabolic stress signatures into clinical stratification pipelines, and

(iii) Design of next-generation co-targeting regimens that synchronize apoptotic priming with suppression of compensatory metabolic rescue [1,42,43].

In summary, targeting mitochondrial metabolic collapse offers a compelling and mechanistically validated route to enhance BTK and BCL2 inhibitor efficacy [1]. Incorporation of PARP inhibitors such as olaparib into metabolic-apoptotic combination frameworks may redefine resistance-breaking strategies in CLL, supporting durable disease control and refined patient-specific therapeutic alignment [28,44-76].

Declarations Section

Author Contributions: Sonu Kumar conceived the study, performed the literature review, drafted the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript. He conceived the concept reading and literature review as well and analysis and concept review. Ankush Sharma conceived the literature suggesting and concept the reading as well. Nanak Singh Toor conceived the new proposal concept literature review and the help Table formation. Khaga Raj Aran conceived the conceptualisation and the review the article and view the suggestions.

Competing interests

The author declares that there are no competing interests related to this work.

References

1. 1. Ayoub, M., Hitier, C., Dehgane, L., Mallet, E., Tannoury, M., Nemazanyy, I., ... & Susin, S. A. (2026). Olaparib sensitizes chronic lymphocytic leukemia to BTK-and BCL2-targeted therapies via PARP1-independent mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction. Leukemia, 1-5.
   2. Chiorazzi, N., Rai, K. R., & Ferrarini, M. (2005). Chronic lymphocytic leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(8), 804-815.
   3. Kipps, T. J., Stevenson, F. K., Wu, C. J., Croce, C. M., Packham, G., Wierda, W. G., ... & Rai, K. (2017). Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Nature reviews Disease primers, 3(1), 1-22.
   4. Burger, J. A., & Chiorazzi, N. (2013). B cell receptor signaling in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Trends in immunology, 34(12), 592-601.
   5. Eichhorst, B., et al. (2021). Chronic lymphocytic leukemia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Annals of Oncology, 32(1), 23–33.
   6. Thompson, P. A., et al. (2017). Metabolic remodeling promotes drug tolerance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nature Medicine, 23, 26–34.
   7. Jitschin, R., et al. (2014). Mitochondrial metabolism supports chronic lymphocytic leukemia cell survival. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 124, 3747–3760.
   8. Amin, N. A., Seymour, J. F., & Tam, C. S. (2022). Mitochondrial adaptation and therapeutic resistance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood Reviews, 56, 100987.
   9. Letai, A. (2008). Mitochondrial apoptotic priming and anti- apoptotic dependencies. Cancer Cell, 14, 169–171.
   10. Hallek, M., et al. (2010). Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in CLL. Lancet, 376, 1164–1174.
   11. Fischer, K., Al-Sawaf, O., Fink, A. M., Dixon, M., Bahlo, J., Warburton, S., ... & Hallek, M. (2016). Safety and efficacy of venetoclax and obinutuzumab in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and coexisting medical conditions: final results of the run-in phase of the randomized CLL14 trial (BO25323).
   12. Woyach, J. A., Furman, R. R., Liu, T. M., Ozer, H. G., Zapatka,M., Ruppert, A. S., ... & Byrd, J. C. (2014). Resistance mechanisms for the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(24), 2286- 2294.
   13. Roberts, A. W., Davids, M. S., Pagel, J. M., Kahl, B.S., Puvvada, S. D., Gerecitano, J. F., ... & Seymour, J.F. (2016). Targeting BCL2 with venetoclax in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(4), 311-322.
   14. Mato, A. R., et al. (2020). Resistance to BTK inhibitors and BCL2 inhibitors in relapsed CLL. Clinical Cancer Research, 26, 4219–4227
   15. Bosc, C., et al. (2021). Mitochondrial reprogramming in therapy-tolerant leukemia cells. Cell Reports, 37, 110230
   16. Woyach, J. A., et al. (2017). PLCG2 mutations in BTKi resistance. Blood, 129, 1469–1479
   17. Herling, C. D., et al. (2022). Clonal evolution and resistance mechanisms in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Nature Communications, 13, 6852
   18. Al-Zubaidi, U., et al. (2021). BCL2 mitochondrial binding domain alterations in lymphoid malignancies. Leukemia Research, 110, 106699
   19. Martinez-Outschoorn, U. E., et al. (2017). Mitochondrial metabolism in cancer therapy response and resistance. Nature Reviews Cancer, 17, 425–438
   20. Zorov, D. B., Juhaszova, M., & Sollott, S. J. (2014). Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ROS- induced ROS release. Physiological reviews, 94(3), 909-950
   21. Molica, S., et al. (2019). Mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Seminars in Oncology, 46, 70–78
   22. Murai, J., et al. (2012). PARP1-independent cytotoxic effectsof olaparib. Cancer Research, 72, 5588–5599.
   23. Siddiqui, A., et al. (2021). Apoptotic co-targeting strategies for resistant or relapsed cancer therapy. Frontiers in Oncology, 11, 713
   24. Riches, J. C., Davies, J. K., McClanahan, F., Fatah, R., Iqbal, S., Agrawal, S., ... & Gribben, J. G. (2013). T cells from CLL patients exhibit features of T-cell exhaustion but retain capacity for cytokine production. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 121(9), 1612-1621
   25. Molina, J. R., et al. (2018). Mitochondrial vulnerabilities as therapeutic targets in cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 24, 434–445.
   26. Insel, P. A., Sriram, K., Gorr, M. W., Wiley, S. Z., Michkov, A., Salmerón, C., & Chinn, A. M. (2019). GPCRomics: an approach to discover GPCR drug targets. Trends in pharmacological sciences, 40(6), 378-387.
   27. Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011). Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. cell, 144(5), 646-674
   28. Lord, C. J., & Ashworth, A. (2017). PARP inhibitors: Synthetic lethality in the clinic. Science, 355(6330), 1152-1158.
   29. D’Amours, D., et al. (1999). Functional roles of poly (ADP- ribose) polymerase-1 in chromatin structure and DNA repair. Biochemical Journal, 342, 249–268.
   30. Ringshausen, I., et al. (2016). Venetoclax in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34, 3813–3820.
   31. Chou, T.-C. (2010). Drug combination synergy and dose- effect relationships: The combination index (CI) method. Pharmacological Reviews, 62, 135–148.
   32. Burger, J. A., et al. (2019). CLL microenvironment-driven metabolic adaptation and immune survival signals. Blood 134, 1648–1659.
   33. Ryan, B. M., et al. (2015). Metabolic reprogramming in cancer. Cancer & Metabolism, 3, 2.
   34. Gentles, A. J., Newman, A. M., Liu, C. L., Bratman, S.V., Feng, W., Kim, D., ... & Alizadeh, A. A. (2015). The prognostic landscape of genes and infiltrating immune cells across human cancers. Nature medicine, 21(8), 938-945.
   35. Ritchie, M. E., Phipson, B., Wu, D. I., Hu, Y., Law, C. W., Shi, W., & Smyth, G. K. (2015). limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic acids research, 43(7), e47-e47
   36. Kanehisa, M., Sato, Y., Furumichi, M., Morishima, K., & Tanabe, M. (2019). New approach for understanding genome variations in KEGG. Nucleic acids research, 47(D1), D590-D595
   37. Huang, D. W., Sherman, B. T., & Lempicki, R. A. (2009). Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources. Nature protocols, 4(1), 44- 57.
   38. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal statistical society: series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.
   39. Mateo, J., Lord, C. J., Serra, V., Tutt, A., Balmaña, J., Castroviejo-Bermejo, M., ... & De Bono, J. S. (2019). A decade of clinical development of PARP inhibitors in perspective. Annals of Oncology, 30(9), 1437-1447.
   40. Setton, J., et al. (2021). Beyond BRCA: Expanding biomarkers of PARP inhibitor response. Nature Cancer, 2, 685–699.
   41. McGrail, D. J., et al. (2018). Tumor mutation burden and immune checkpoint response limitations. Cancer Cell, 34, 724–726
   42. Vickers, A. J., & Elkin, E. B. (2006). Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Medical Decision Making, 26(6), 565-574.
   43. Van Calster, B., et al. (2019). Calibration of risk prediction models. Statistics in Medicine, 38, 1599–1617.
   44. Pilié, P. G., et al. (2019). Targeting DNA repair and replication stress in cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 25, 1786–1794.
   45. Barrett, T., Wilhite, S. E., Ledoux, P., Evangelista, C., Kim, I. F., Tomashevsky, M., ... & Soboleva, A. (2012). NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets—update. Nucleic acids research, 41(D1), D991-D995.
   46. Binnewies, M., Roberts, E. W., Kersten, K., Chan, V., Fearon,D. F., Merad, M., ... & Krummel, M. F. (2018). Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nature medicine, 24(5), 541-550.
   47. Chin, C. H., Chen, S. H., Wu, H. H., Ho, C. W., Ko, M. T.,& Lin, C. Y. (2014). cytoHubba: identifying hub objects and sub-networks from complex interactome. BMC systems biology, 8(Suppl 4), S11.
   48. Corsello, S. M., Nagari, R. T., Spangler, R. D., Rossen, J.,Kocak, M., Bryan, J. G., ... & Golub, T. R. (2020). Discovering the anticancer potential of non-oncology drugs by systematic viability profiling. Nature cancer, 1(2), 235-248. 
   49. Dorsam, R. T., & Gutkind, J. S. (2007). G-protein-coupled receptors and cancer. Nature reviews cancer, 7(2), 79-94.
   50. Fleige, S., & Pfaffl, M. W. (2006). RNA integrity and the effect on the real-time qRT-PCR performance. Molecular aspects of medicine, 27(2-3), 126-139
   51. Freshour, S. L., Kiwala, S., Cotto, K. C., Coffman, A. C.,McMichael, J. F., Song, J. J., ... & Wagner, A. H. (2021). Integration of the Drug–Gene Interaction Database (DGIdb 4.0) with open crowdsource efforts. Nucleic acids research, 49(D1), D1144-D1151.
   52. Gainetdinov, R. R., et al. (2004). Dopamine receptors and their signal transduction pathways. Pharmacological Reviews, 56, 143–182.
   53. Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology, 143(1), 29-36.
   54. Hänzelmann, S., Castelo, R., & Guinney, J. (2013). GSVA: gene set variation analysis for microarray and RNA-seq data. BMC bioinformatics, 14(1), 7.
   55. Harrell, F. E., & Levy, D. G. (2022). Regression modelingstrategies. R package version, 6-3.
   56. Ioannidis, J. P., Allison, D. B., Ball, C. A., Coulibaly, I., Cui, X., Culhane, A. C., ... & van Noort, V. (2009). Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nature genetics, 41(2), 149-155.
   57. Iasonos, A., et al. (2008). How to build and interpret a nomogram for cancer prognosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 1364–1370.
   58. Irizarry, R. A., Hobbs, B., Collin, F., Beazer�Barclay, Y. D., Antonellis, K. J., Scherf, U., & Speed, T. P. (2003). Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics, 4(2), 249-264.
   59. Kalia, L. V., & Lang, A. E. (2015). Parkinson’s disease: Etiology and pathogenesis. Lancet Neurology, 14, 1104–1126
   60. Kubista, M., Andrade, J. M., Bengtsson, M., Forootan, A., Jonák, J., Lind, K., ... & Zoric, N. (2006). The real- time polymerase chain reaction. Molecular aspects of medicine, 27(2-3), 95-125.
   61. Lewis, B. P., Burge, C. B., & Bartel, D. P. (2005). Conserved seed pairing, often flanked by adenosines, indicates that thousands of human genes are microRNA targets. cell, 120(1), 15-20.
   62. Monti, S., Tamayo, P., Mesirov, J., & Golub, T. (2003). Consensus clustering: a resampling-based method for class discovery and visualization of gene expression microarray data. Machine learning, 52(1), 91-118.
   63. Mukaka, M. M. (2012). A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi medical journal: the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 24(3), 69.
   64. Nalls, M. A., Blauwendraat, C., Vallerga, C. L., Heilbron, K., Bandres-Ciga, S., Chang, D., ... & Rizig, M. (2019). Identification of novel risk loci, causal insights, and heritable risk for Parkinson's disease: a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies. The Lancet Neurology, 18(12), 1091- 1102.
   65. O’Hayre, M., et al. (2014). The emerging mutational landscape of G-proteins and GPCR signaling. Cell, 158, 1272–1285.
   66. Poewe, W., Seppi, K., Tanner, C. M., Halliday, G. M., Brundin, P., Volkmann, J., ... & Lang, A. E. (2017). Parkinson disease. Nature reviews Disease primers, 3(1), 17013.
   67. Team, R. C. (2020). RA language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical. Computing.
   68. Paul, S. (2003). Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models. Genome Res, 13, 426.
   69. Smyth, G. K. (2004). Linear models and empirical Bayes methods for assessing differential expression. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 3, 1–25.
   70. Mg, S. (1997). α-synuclein in Lewy bodies. Nature, 388, 839-840.
   71. Steyerberg, E. W., et al. (2010). Assessing predictive performance. Clinical Epidemiology, 2, 45–51.
   72. Taylor, S. C., Nadeau, K., Abbasi, M., Lachance, C., Nguyen, M., & Fenrich, J. (2019). The ultimate qPCR experiment: producing publication quality, reproducible data the first time. Trends in biotechnology, 37(7), 761-774.
   73. Tolosa, E., et al. (2021). Challenges in Parkinson’s disease biomarker discovery. Lancet Neurology, 20, 617–630.
   74. Vogelstein, B., Papadopoulos, N., Velculescu, V. E., Zhou, S., Diaz Jr, L. A., & Kinzler, K. W. (2013). Cancer genome landscapes. science, 339(6127), 1546-1558.
   75. Wishart, D. S., Feunang, Y. D., Guo, A. C., Lo, E. J., Marcu,A., Grant, J. R., ... & Wilson, M. (2018). DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic acids research, 46(D1), D1074-D1082.
   76. Zhang, B., et al. (2020). Integrative transcriptomic analyses.Nature Biotechnology, 38, 59–68.