Letters ; 244 (2016). -S. 56-71 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2015In particular, we recorded substance specific as well as dose and time dependent PARylation responses using independent bioanalytical methods based on single cell immuno fluorescence microscopy and quantitative isotope dilution mass spectrometry. Furthermore, we analyzed if and how PARylation contributes to mustard induced toxicity by treating HaCaT cells with CEES, SM, and HN2 in combination with the clinically relevant PARP inhibitor ABT888. As evaluated by a novel immunofluorescence based protocol for the detection of N7 ETE guanine DNA adducts, the excision rate of CEES induced DNA adducts was not affected by PARP inhibition. Furthermore, while CEES induced moderate changes in cellular NAD + levels, annexin V/PI flow cytometry analysis revealed that these changes did not affect CEES induced short term cytotoxicity 24 h after treatment. In contrast, PARP inhibition impaired cell proliferation and clonogenic survival, and potentiated micronuclei formation of HaCaT cells upon CEES treatment. Similarly, PARP inhibition affected clonogenic survival of cells treated with bi functional mustards such as SM and HN2.In conclusion, we demonstrate that PARylation plays a functional role in mustard induced cellular stress response with substance specific differences. Since PARP inhibitors exhibit therapeutic potential to treat SM related pathologies and to sensitize cancer cells for mustard based chemotherapy, potential long term effects of PARP inhibition on genomic stability and carcinogenesis should be carefully considered when pursuing such a strategy.