Carla Mattos

Direct Attack on RAS: Intramolecular Communication and Mutation-Specific Effects

The crystal structure of RAS was first solved 25 years ago. In spite of tremendous and sustained efforts, there are still no drugs in the clinic that directly target this major driver of human cancers. Recent success in the discovery of compounds that bind RAS and inhibit signaling has fueled renewed enthusiasm, and in-depth understanding of the structure and function of RAS has opened new avenues for direct targeting. To succeed, we must focus on the molecular details of the RAS structure and understand at a high-resolution level how the oncogenic mutants impair function. Structural networks of intramolecular communication between the RAS active site and membrane-interacting regions on the G-domain are disrupted in oncogenic mutants. Although conserved across the isoforms, these networks are near hot spots of protein–ligand interactions with amino acid composition that varies among RAS proteins. These differences could have an effect on stabilization of conformational states of interest in attenuating signaling through RAS. The development of strategies to target these novel sites will add a fresh direction in the quest to conquer RAS-driven cancers. Clin Cancer Res; 21(8); 1810–8. ©2015 AACR. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “Targeting RAS-Driven Cancers.”

The Ras-membrane Interface: Isoform-specific Differences in the Catalytic Domain

The small GTPase Ras is mutated in about 20% of human cancers, primarily at active site amino acid residues G12, G13, and Q61. Thus, structural biology research has focused on the active site, impairment of GTP hydrolysis by oncogenic mutants, and characterization of protein–protein interactions in the effector lobe half of the protein. The C-terminal hypervariable region has increasingly gained attention due to its importance in H-Ras, N-Ras, and K-Ras differences in membrane association. A high-resolution molecular view of the Ras–membrane interaction involving the allosteric lobe of the catalytic domain has lagged behind, although evidence suggests that it contributes to isoform specificity. The allosteric lobe has recently gained interest for harboring potential sites for more selective targeting of this elusive “undruggable” protein. The present review reveals critical insight that isoform-specific differences appear prominently at these potentially targetable sites and integrates these differences with knowledge of Ras plasma membrane localization, with the intent to better understand the structure–function relationships needed to design isoform-specific Ras inhibitors. Mol Cancer Res; 13(4); 595–603. ©2015 AACR.

The allosteric switch and conformational states in Ras GTPase affected by small molecules.

Ras is a hub protein in signal transduction pathways leading to the control of cell proliferation, migration, and survival and a major target for drug discovery due to the presence of its mutants in about 20% of human cancers. Yet, the discovery of small molecules that can directly interfere with its function has been elusive in spite of intense efforts. This is most likely due to its highly flexible nature and the lack of a well-ordered active site. This chapter contains a discussion of our current understanding of conformational states in Ras-GTP, with focus on a recently discovered allosteric switch mechanism that may promote intrinsic hydrolysis of GTP in the presence of Raf. We discuss the manner in which small molecules are known to affect the equilibrium of states in Ras-GTP and suggest novel strategies to go forward in the search for inhibitors of this master signaling protein.

An engineered protein antagonist of K-Ras/B-Raf interaction

Ras is at the hub of signal transduction pathways controlling cell proliferation and survival. Its mutants, present in about 30% of human cancers, are major drivers of oncogenesis and render tumors unresponsive to standard therapies. Here we report the engineering of a protein scaffold for preferential binding to K-Ras G12D. This is the first reported inhibitor to achieve nanomolar affinity while exhibiting specificity for mutant over wild type (WT) K-Ras. Crystal structures of the protein R11.1.6 in complex with K-Ras WT and K-Ras G12D offer insight into the structural basis for specificity, highlighting differences in the switch I conformation as the major defining element in the higher affinity interaction. R11.1.6 directly blocks interaction with Raf and reduces signaling through the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway. Our results support greater consideration of the state of switch I and provide a novel tool to study Ras biology. Most importantly, this work makes an unprecedented contribution to Ras research in inhibitor development strategy by revealing details of a targetable binding surface. Unlike the polar interfaces found for Ras/effector interactions, the K-Ras/R11.1.6 complex reveals an extensive hydrophobic interface that can serve as a template to advance the development of high affinity, non-covalent inhibitors of K-Ras oncogenic mutants.

The small GTPases K-Ras, N-Ras and H-Ras have distinct biochemical properties determined by allosteric effects

H-Ras, K-Ras, and N-Ras are small GTPases that are important in the control of cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival, and their mutants occur frequently in human cancers. The G-domain, which catalyzes GTP hydrolysis and mediates downstream signaling, is 95% conserved between the Ras isoforms. Because of their very high sequence identity, biochemical studies done on H-Ras have been considered representative of all three Ras proteins. We show here that this is not a valid assumption. Using enzyme kinetic assays under identical conditions, we observed clear differences between the three isoforms in intrinsic catalysis of GTP by Ras in the absence and presence of the Ras-binding domain (RBD) of the c-Raf kinase protein (Raf-RBD). Given their identical active sites, isoform G-domain differences must be allosteric in origin, due to remote isoform-specific residues that affect conformational states. We present the crystal structure of N-Ras bound to a GTP analogue and interpret the kinetic data in terms of structural features specific for H-, K-, and N-Ras.

Expression, purification, crystallization and X-ray data collection for RAS and its mutants

This article expands on crystal structure data for human H-RAS with mutations at position Y137, briefly described in a paper on the effects of phosphorylation of Y137 by ABL kinases (Tyrosine phosphorylation of RAS by ABL allosterically enhances effector binding, published in the FASEB Journal [1]). The crystal structures of the Y137E mutant (phosphorylation mimic) and of the Y137F mutant (without the hydroxyl group where phosphorylation occurs) were deposited in the Protein Data Bank with PDB codes 4XVQ (H-RASY137E) and 4XVR (H-RASY137F). This article includes details for expression and purification of RAS and its mutants with no affinity tags, in vitro exchange of guanine nucleotides, protein crystallization, X-ray data collection and structure refinement.

Predicting X-ray solution scattering from flexible macromolecules: WAXS from Flexible Macromolecules

Wide‐angle X‐ray solution scattering (WAXS) patterns contain substantial information about the structure and dynamics of a protein. Solution scattering from a rigid protein can be predicted from atomic coordinate sets to within experimental error. However, structural fluctuations of proteins in solution can lead to significant changes in the observed intensities. The magnitude and form of these changes contain information about the nature and spatial extent of structural fluctuations in the protein. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations based on a crystal structure and selected force field generate models for protein internal motions, and here we demonstrate that they can be used to predict the impact of structural fluctuations on solution scattering data. In cases where the observed and calculated intensities correspond, we can conclude that the X‐ray scattering provides direct experimental validation of the structural and MD results. In cases where calculated and observed intensities are at odds, the inconsistencies can be used to determine the origins of these discrepancies. They may be because of overestimates or underestimates of structural fluctuations in MD simulations, under‐sampling of the structural ensemble in the simulations, errors in the structural model, or a mismatch between the experimental conditions and the parameters used in carrying out the MD simulation.