60
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      K-Ras(G12C) inhibitors allosterically control GTP affinity and effector interactions

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Somatic mutations in the small GTPase K-Ras are the most common activating lesions found in human cancer, and are generally associated with poor response to standard therapies. Efforts to target this oncogene directly have faced difficulties owing to its picomolar affinity for GTP/GDP and the absence of known allosteric regulatory sites. Oncogenic mutations result in functional activation of Ras family proteins by impairing GTP hydrolysis. With diminished regulation by GTPase activity, the nucleotide state of Ras becomes more dependent on relative nucleotide affinity and concentration. This gives GTP an advantage over GDP and increases the proportion of active GTP-bound Ras. Here we report the development of small molecules that irreversibly bind to a common oncogenic mutant, K-Ras(G12C). These compounds rely on the mutant cysteine for binding and therefore do not affect the wild-type protein. Crystallographic studies reveal the formation of a new pocket that is not apparent in previous structures of Ras, beneath the effector binding switch-II region. Binding of these inhibitors to K-Ras(G12C) disrupts both switch-I and switch-II, subverting the native nucleotide preference to favour GDP over GTP and impairing binding to Raf. Our data provide structure-based validation of a new allosteric regulatory site on Ras that is targetable in a mutant-specific manner.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          KRAS Mutations and Primary Resistance of Lung Adenocarcinomas to Gefitinib or Erlotinib

          Introduction Genes of the ERBB family encode receptor tyrosine kinases that mediate cellular responses to growth signals. Somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domains of two ERBB genes, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER2, have been found in a proportion of lung adenocarcinomas [1,2,3,4]. For EGFR, mutations are associated with sensitivity to the small-molecule kinase inhibitors gefitinib (Iressa) [1,2,3] and erlotinib (Tarceva) [3]. ERBB signaling pathways include downstream GTPases encoded by RAS genes. Some 15%–30% of lung adenocarcinomas contain activating mutations in the RAS family member KRAS. These mutations are most frequently found in codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 [5,6], and may be associated with unfavorable outcomes [7]. Interestingly, EGFR and KRAS mutations are rarely found in the same tumors, suggesting that they have functionally equivalent roles in lung tumorigenesis ([8]; M. Meyerson, personal communication). Furthermore, EGFR mutations are common in tumors from patients who have smoked less than 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes (“never smokers”) [3], while KRAS mutations more commonly occur in individuals with a history of substantial cigarette use [9]. We sought to determine whether KRAS mutations could also be used to predict primary sensitivity or resistance to gefitinib or erlotinib. We systematically evaluated 60 lung adenocarcinomas from patients with known responses to either of these drugs for the presence of mutations in EGFR (exons 18 through 21) and KRAS2 (exon 2). Here, we show that mutations in KRAS are associated with primary resistance to single-agent gefitinib or erlotinib. Our results suggest that a determination of mutational status for both EGFR and KRAS may help define which patients are likely to benefit from receiving gefitinib or erlotinib. Methods Tissue Procurement Tumor specimens were obtained through protocols approved by the institutional review board of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, as previously described [3] (see Protocols S1–S3). Tumor material, obtained from patients prior to kinase inhibitor treatment for lung cancer, was collected retrospectively for patients on gefitinib, who received 250 mg or 500 mg orally once daily (n = 24), and prospectively for patients on erlotinib, who received 150 mg orally once daily (n = 36). The latter cohort of patients was part of a clinical trial of erlotinib for patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. The analysis presented here includes specimens we previously reported on (n = 17 for gefitinib and n = 17 for erlotinib) [3]. All specimens were reviewed by a single reference pathologist (M. F. Z.). Imaging studies were assessed by a single reference radiologist (R. T. H.), who graded responses according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [10]. Both observers were blinded to patient outcomes. Eight of nine patients with tumors sensitive to gefitinib had objective partial responses as defined by RECIST, i.e., at least a 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameters of target lesions, taking as reference the sum measured at baseline. The ninth patient had marked clinical improvement, as ascertained by two independent reviewing physicians and manifested by lessened dyspnea and cancer-related pain. However, this individual had radiographic lesions (pleural and bone metastases) that were deemed nonmeasurable by RECIST criteria. As erlotinib-treated patients were all in a clinical trial, all had disease measurable using RECIST guidelines. For both drugs in this study, tumors were considered refractory if they did not undergo sufficient shrinkage to qualify for partial response. This definition includes patients whose “best overall response” was either progression of disease (n = 26) or stable disease (n = 12) as defined by RECIST. No patients had a complete response. Mutational Analyses of EGFR and KRAS in Lung Tumors Genomic DNA was extracted from tumors embedded in paraffin blocks, except for tumor 109T, which was a fresh-frozen tumor specimen. Primers for EGFR analyses (exons 18–21) were as published [3]. For KRAS analyses, the following nested primer sets for exon 2 were used: huKRAS2 ex2F, 5′- GAATGGTCCTGCACCAGTAA-3′; huKRAS2 ex2R, 5′- GTGTGACATGTTCTAATATAGTCA-3′; huKRAS2 ex2Fint, 5′- GTCCTGCACCAGTAATATGC-3′; and huKRAS2 ex2Rint, 5′- ATGTTCTAATATAGTCACATTTTC-3′. For both EGFR and KRAS, PCR was performed using the HotStarTaq Master Mix Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, California, United States), as per manufacturer's instructions. Use of this method often obviated the need for nested PCR sets. All sequencing reactions were performed in both forward and reverse directions, and all mutations were confirmed by PCR amplification of an independent DNA isolate. In 12 cases, exon 19 deletions were also studied by length analysis of fluorescently labeled PCR products on a capillary electrophoresis device, using the following primers: EGFR-Ex19-FWD1, 5′- GCACCATCTCACAATTGCCAGTTA-3′, and EGFR-Ex19-REV1, 5′-Fam- AAAAGGTGGGCCTGAGGTTCA-3′. Using serial dilutions of DNA from the H1650 non-small-cell lung cancer cell line (exon 19 deletion-positive [11]), this assay detects the mutant allele when H1650 DNA comprises 6% or more of the total DNA tested, compared to a sensitivity of 12% for direct sequencing. These same cases were also screened for the exon 21 L858R mutation by a PCR–restriction fragment length polymorphism assay, based on a new Sau96I restriction site created by the L858R mutation (2,573T→G). The Sau96I-digested fluorescently labeled PCR products were analyzed by capillary electrophoresis, and the following primers were used: EGFR-Ex21-FWD1, 5′- CCTCACAGCAGGGTCTTCTCTGT-3′, and EGFR-Ex21-REV1, 5′-Fam- TCAGGAAAATGCTGGCTGACCTA-3′. Using serial dilutions of DNA from the H1975 cell line (L858R-positive [11]), this assay detects the mutant allele when H1975 DNA comprises 3% or more of the total DNA tested, compared to a sensitivity of 6% for direct sequencing (Q. Pan, W. Pao, and M. Ladanyi, unpublished data). Statistics Fisher's Exact Test was used to calculate p-values, and confidence intervals were calculated using Statistics with Confidence software [12]. Results We identified 60 lung adenocarcinomas from individual patients with tumors shown to be sensitive or refractory to single-agent gefitinib or erlotinib and evaluated these tumors for mutations in EGFR and KRAS. Collectively, nine of 38 (24%) tumors refractory to either kinase inhibitor had KRAS mutations, while zero of 21 (0%) drug-sensitive tumors had such mutations (p = 0.02) (Table 1). The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for these observations are 13%–39% and 0%–16%, respectively. Conversely, 17 of 22 (77%) tumors sensitive to either kinase inhibitor had EGFR mutations, in contrast to zero of 38 (0%) drug-resistant tumors (p = 6.8 × 10−11). The 95% CIs for these observed response rates are 57%–90% and 0%–9%, respectively. All 17 tumors with EGFR mutations responded to gefitinib or erlotinib, while all nine tumors with KRAS mutations did not (p = 3.2 × 10−7). Correlation of EGFR and KRAS mutational status with drug and treatment response is detailed in Table 1. The spectrum of KRAS mutations is shown in Figure 1 and Table 2. Results with gefitinib and erlotinib were similar overall. However, the incidence of KRAS mutations in the patients treated with erlotinib was low, probably because of the fact that all patients treated with this drug had bronchioloalveolar carcinoma, which rarely has RAS mutations [13]. Alternatively, our analyses involving only exon 2 of KRAS2 may have missed some RAS mutations. However, in our analysis of the exonic regions encoding the first 100 amino acids of KRAS in 110 surgically resected early-stage non-small-cell lung cancers, we have found 18 mutations, and all were in either codon 12 or codon 13, encoded by exon 2 (W. Pao, R. Wilson, H. Varmus, unpublished data). Another possibility is that the erlotinib-treated tumors have mutations in other RAS genes, since a minority of RAS mutations in lung cancer have been reported to occur in N- or HRAS [5,6]. Discussion These results have important clinical implications. First, they extend previous data from our group and others showing that lung adenocarcinomas containing EGFR mutations are associated with sensitivity to gefitinib or erlotinib (17 of 17 in this series; 100% observed response rate; 95% CI, 82%–100%). Second, these data show that tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations (n = 9) are associated with a lack of response to these kinase inhibitors (0% observed response rate; 95% CI, 0%–30%). Third, no drug-sensitive tumors had KRAS exon 2 mutations (n = 21). Whether KRAS mutational status can be used to predict responses to gefitinib or erlotinib in patients whose tumors have wild-type EGFR sequence is still under investigation: our analysis comparing response rates for tumors with neither EGFR nor KRAS mutations versus tumors with wild-type EGFR but mutated KRAS does not reach statistical significance (five of 22 versus zero of nine; p = 0.29). Nevertheless, these findings suggest that patients whose lung adenocarcinomas have KRAS mutations will not experience significant tumor regression with either drug. The incidence of EGFR mutations in tumors responsive to EGFR kinase inhibitors has varied from 71% to 100% ([1,2,3] and this paper). Thus, at this point, patients whose tumors test negative for EGFR mutations should not necessarily be precluded from treatment with either gefitinib or erlotinib. Data presented here suggest that clinical decisions regarding the use of these agents in patients with lung adenocarcinomas might be improved in the future by pre-treatment mutational profiling of both EGFR and KRAS. These findings warrant validation in large prospective trials using standardized mutation detection techniques. Supporting Information Protocol S1 Preclinical Studies of Blood, Urine, Bone Marrow, and Tissues Collected from Patients with Thoracic Malignancies (32 KB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Protocol S2 Multicenter Phase II Trial of OSI-774 (Erlotinib, Tarceva) in Patients with Advanced Bronchioloalveolar Cell Lung Cancer (1.9 MB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Protocol S3 Protocol Approval Letters (60 KB PDF). Click here for additional data file. Accession Numbers The LocusLink (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/LocusLink/) accession number for the KRAS2 sequence discussed in this paper is 3845; the GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/) accession number for the KRAS2 sequence discussed in this paper is NT_009714.16. Patient Summary Background Two drugs, gefitinib (Iressa) and erlotinib (Tarceva), have been developed that can make lung cancers smaller in some patients. The drugs work by blocking the effect of a molecule called the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which relays instructions to cells to grow and divide. Recently, researchers found that these drugs most effectively shrink tumors that have acquired abnormal variations (mutations) in the EGFR gene. These mutations somehow allow tumor cells to escape normal safety mechanisms that keep cells from growing out of control. Some lung cancers also have mutations in another gene called KRAS. Interestingly, KRAS mutations and EGFR mutations are rarely ever found in the same tumor. Why Was This Study Done? Unfortunately, EGFR mutations are only found in a minority of patients with lung cancer. This means that gefitinib or erlotinib might be given to a lot of patients who may not benefit from this treatment. Ideally, the drugs would be given only to patients who we know will benefit from them. This study examined whether studying the KRAS gene (to see if it had a mutation) could help predict which patients had tumors that would respond well to the drugs. What Did the Researchers Do? They took 60 lung cancer samples from patients who had been treated with one of the drugs and either responded (that is, their tumors shrunk in size) or not, and tested whether the tumors had normal or abnormal KRAS. What Did They Find? Tumors that got significantly smaller while treated with gefitinib or erlotinib (a total of 22) had a normal KRAS gene. Most of these tumors had EGFR mutations. Conversely, tumors that had abnormal KRAS (a total of nine) did not shrink while treated with gefitinib or erlotinib. What Does This Mean? Both gefitinib and erlotinib are expensive and have side effects. Testing for EGFR and KRAS mutations is relatively straightforward, and one could test for abnormalities in both genes first and then decide which patients should be treated with either of the two drugs. What Next? Before doing EGFR and KRAS tests on a routine basis and taking the results into account when making a decision about who should be treated with gefitinib or erlotinib, larger studies need to be done to see whether the results reported here hold up. More Information Online US Food and Drug Administration information page on Iressa: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/iressa/iressaQ&A.htm Cancer Research UK information page about erlotinib: http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=10296
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Small-molecule ligands bind to a distinct pocket in Ras and inhibit SOS-mediated nucleotide exchange activity.

            The Ras gene is frequently mutated in cancer, and mutant Ras drives tumorigenesis. Although Ras is a central oncogene, small molecules that bind to Ras in a well-defined manner and exert inhibitory effects have not been uncovered to date. Through an NMR-based fragment screen, we identified a group of small molecules that all bind to a common site on Ras. High-resolution cocrystal structures delineated a unique ligand-binding pocket on the Ras protein that is adjacent to the switch I/II regions and can be expanded upon compound binding. Structure analysis predicts that compound-binding interferes with the Ras/SOS interactions. Indeed, selected compounds inhibit SOS-mediated nucleotide exchange and prevent Ras activation by blocking the formation of intermediates of the exchange reaction. The discovery of a small-molecule binding pocket on Ras with functional significance provides a new direction in the search of therapeutically effective inhibitors of the Ras oncoprotein.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Molecular switch for signal transduction: structural differences between active and inactive forms of protooncogenic ras proteins.

              Ras proteins participate as a molecular switch in the early steps of the signal transduction pathway that is associated with cell growth and differentiation. When the protein is in its GTP complexed form it is active in signal transduction, whereas it is inactive in its GDP complexed form. A comparison of eight three-dimensional structures of ras proteins in four different crystal lattices, five with a nonhydrolyzable GTP analog and three with GDP, reveals that the "on" and "off" states of the switch are distinguished by conformational differences that span a length of more than 40 A, and are induced by the gamma-phosphate. The most significant differences are localized in two regions: residues 30 to 38 (the switch I region) in the second loop and residues 60 to 76 (the switch II region) consisting of the fourth loop and the short alpha-helix that follows the loop. Both regions are highly exposed and form a continuous strip on the molecular surface most likely to be the recognition sites for the effector and receptor molecule(or molecules). The conformational differences also provide a structural basis for understanding the biological and biochemical changes of the proteins due to oncogenic mutations, autophosphorylation, and GTP hydrolysis, and for understanding the interactions with other proteins.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nature
                Nature
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0028-0836
                1476-4687
                November 2013
                November 20 2013
                November 2013
                : 503
                : 7477
                : 548-551
                Article
                10.1038/nature12796
                4274051
                24256730
                0586b6d4-9655-4159-81c0-6fc80f5ba22e
                © 2013

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article