Inhibition and degradation of NRAS with a pan-NRAS monobody.

The RAS family GTPases are the most frequently mutated oncogene family in human cancers. Activating mutations in either of the three RAS isoforms (HRAS, KRAS, or NRAS) are found in nearly 20% of all human tumors with NRAS mutated in ~25% of melanomas. Despite remarkable advancements in therapies targeted against mutant KRAS, NRAS-specific pharmacologics are lacking. Thus, development of inhibitors of NRAS would address a critical unmet need to treating primary tumors harboring NRAS mutations as well as BRAF-mutant melanomas, which frequently develop resistance to clinically approved BRAF inhibitors through NRAS mutation. Building upon our previous studies with the monobody NS1 that recognizes HRAS and KRAS but not NRAS, here we report the development of a monobody that specifically binds to both GDP and GTP-bound states of NRAS and inhibits NRAS-mediated signaling in a mutation-agnostic manner. Further, this monobody can be formatted into a genetically encoded NRAS-specific degrader. Our study highlights the feasibility of developing NRAS selective inhibitors for therapeutic efforts.

Functional interactions between neurofibromatosis tumor suppressors underlie Schwann cell tumor de-differentiation and treatment resistance.

Schwann cell tumors are the most common cancers of the peripheral nervous system and can arise in patients with neurofibromatosis type-1 (NF-1) or neurofibromatosis type-2 (NF-2). Functional interactions between NF1 and NF2 and broader mechanisms underlying malignant transformation of the Schwann lineage are unclear. Here we integrate bulk and single-cell genomics, biochemistry, and pharmacology across human samples, cell lines, and mouse allografts to identify cellular de-differentiation mechanisms driving malignant transformation and treatment resistance. We find DNA methylation groups of Schwann cell tumors can be distinguished by differentiation programs that correlate with response to the MEK inhibitor selumetinib. Functional genomic screening in NF1-mutant tumor cells reveals NF2 loss and PAK activation underlie selumetinib resistance, and we find that concurrent MEK and PAK inhibition is effective in vivo. These data support a de-differentiation paradigm underlying malignant transformation and treatment resistance of Schwann cell tumors and elucidate a functional link between NF1 and NF2.

RAS-dependent RAF-MAPK hyperactivation by pathogenic RIT1 is a therapeutic target in Noonan syndrome-associated cardiac hypertrophy.

RIT1 is a RAS guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase) that regulates different aspects of signal transduction and is mutated in lung cancer, leukemia, and in the germline of individuals with Noonan syndrome. Pathogenic RIT1 proteins promote mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) hyperactivation; however, this mechanism remains poorly understood. Here, we show that RAF kinases are direct effectors of membrane-bound mutant RIT1 necessary for MAPK activation. We identify critical residues in RIT1 that facilitate interaction with membrane lipids and show that these are necessary for association with RAF kinases and MAPK activation. Although mutant RIT1 binds to RAF kinases directly, it fails to activate MAPK signaling in the absence of classical RAS proteins. Consistent with aberrant RAF/MAPK activation as a driver of disease, we show that pathway inhibition alleviates cardiac hypertrophy in a mouse model of RIT1 mutant Noonan syndrome. These data shed light on the function of pathogenic RIT1 and identify avenues for therapeutic intervention.

The ribosomal S6 kinase 2 (RSK2)-SPRED2 complex regulates the phosphorylation of RSK substrates and MAPK signaling.

Sprouty-related EVH-1 domain-containing (SPRED) proteins are a family of proteins that negatively regulate the RAS-Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase (MAPK) pathway, which is involved in the regulation of the mitogenic response and cell proliferation. However, the mechanism by which these proteins affect RAS-MAPK signaling has not been elucidated. Patients with mutations in SPRED give rise to unique disease phenotypes; thus, we hypothesized that distinct interactions across SPRED proteins may account for alternative nodes of regulation. To characterize the SPRED interactome and evaluate how members of the SPRED family function through unique binding partners, we performed affinity purification mass spectrometry. We identified 90-kDa ribosomal S6 kinase 2 (RSK2) as a specific interactor of SPRED2 but not SPRED1 or SPRED3. We identified that the N-terminal kinase domain of RSK2 mediates the interaction between amino acids 123 to 201 of SPRED2. Using X-ray crystallography, we determined the structure of the SPRED2-RSK2 complex and identified the SPRED2 motif, F145A, as critical for interaction. We found that the formation of this interaction is regulated by MAPK signaling events. We also find that this interaction between SPRED2 and RSK2 has functional consequences, whereby the knockdown of SPRED2 resulted in increased phosphorylation of RSK substrates, YB1 and CREB. Furthermore, SPRED2 knockdown hindered phospho-RSK membrane and nuclear subcellular localization. We report that disruption of the SPRED2-RSK complex has effects on RAS-MAPK signaling dynamics. Our analysis reveals that members of the SPRED family have unique protein binding partners and describes the molecular and functional determinants of SPRED2-RSK2 complex dynamics.

ERK1/2 inhibitors act as monovalent degraders inducing ubiquitylation and proteasome-dependent turnover of ERK2, but not ERK1.

Innate or acquired resistance to small molecule BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors (BRAFi or MEKi) typically arises through mechanisms that sustain or reinstate ERK1/2 activation. This has led to the development of a range of ERK1/2 inhibitors (ERKi) that either inhibit kinase catalytic activity (catERKi) or additionally prevent the activating pT-E-pY dual phosphorylation of ERK1/2 by MEK1/2 (dual-mechanism or dmERKi). Here, we show that eight different ERKi (both catERKi or dmERKi) drive the turnover of ERK2, the most abundant ERK isoform, with little or no effect on ERK1. Thermal stability assays show that ERKi do not destabilise ERK2 (or ERK1) in vitro, suggesting that ERK2 turnover is a cellular consequence of ERKi binding. ERK2 turnover is not observed upon treatment with MEKi alone, suggesting it is ERKi binding to ERK2 that drives ERK2 turnover. However, MEKi pre-treatment, which blocks ERK2 pT-E-pY phosphorylation and dissociation from MEK1/2, prevents ERK2 turnover. ERKi treatment of cells drives the poly-ubiquitylation and proteasome-dependent turnover of ERK2 and pharmacological or genetic inhibition of Cullin-RING E3 ligases prevents this. Our results suggest that ERKi, including current clinical candidates, act as 'kinase degraders', driving the proteasome-dependent turnover of their major target, ERK2. This may be relevant to the suggestion of kinase-independent effects of ERK1/2 and the therapeutic use of ERKi.

Destabilizing NF1 variants act in a dominant negative manner through neurofibromin dimerization.

The majority of pathogenic mutations in the neurofibromatosis type I (NF1) gene reduce total neurofibromin protein expression through premature truncation or microdeletion, but it is less well understood how loss-of-function missense variants drive NF1 disease. We have found that patient variants in codons 844 to 848, which correlate with a severe phenotype, cause protein instability and exert an additional dominant-negative action whereby wild-type neurofibromin also becomes destabilized through protein dimerization. We have used our neurofibromin cryogenic electron microscopy structure to predict and validate other patient variants that act through a similar mechanism. This provides a foundation for understanding genotype-phenotype correlations and has important implications for patient counseling, disease management, and therapeutics.

RAS interaction with Sin1 is dispensable for mTORC2 assembly and activity.

RAS proteins are molecular switches that interact with effector proteins when bound to guanosine triphosphate, stimulating downstream signaling in response to multiple stimuli. Although several canonical downstream effectors have been extensively studied and tested as potential targets for RAS-driven cancers, many of these remain poorly characterized. In this study, we undertook a biochemical and structural approach to further study the role of Sin1 as a RAS effector. Sin1 interacted predominantly with KRAS isoform 4A in cells through an atypical RAS-binding domain that we have characterized by X-ray crystallography. Despite the essential role of Sin1 in the assembly and activity of mTORC2, we find that the interaction with RAS is not required for these functions. Cells and mice expressing a mutant of Sin1 that is unable to bind RAS are proficient for activation and assembly of mTORC2. Our results suggest that Sin1 is a bona fide RAS effector that regulates downstream signaling in an mTORC2-independent manner.

SLFN11 informs on standard of care and novel treatments in a wide range of cancer models.

BACKGROUND: Schlafen 11 (SLFN11) has been linked with response to DNA-damaging agents (DDA) and PARP inhibitors. An in-depth understanding of several aspects of its role as a biomarker in cancer is missing, as is a comprehensive analysis of the clinical significance of SLFN11 as a predictive biomarker to DDA and/or DNA damage-response inhibitor (DDRi) therapies. METHODS: We used a multidisciplinary effort combining specific immunohistochemistry, pharmacology tests, anticancer combination therapies and mechanistic studies to assess SLFN11 as a potential biomarker for stratification of patients treated with several DDA and/or DDRi in the preclinical and clinical setting. RESULTS: SLFN11 protein associated with both preclinical and patient treatment response to DDA, but not to non-DDA or DDRi therapies, such as WEE1 inhibitor or olaparib in breast cancer. SLFN11-low/absent cancers were identified across different tumour types tested. Combinations of DDA with DDRi targeting the replication-stress response (ATR, CHK1 and WEE1) could re-sensitise SLFN11-absent/low cancer models to the DDA treatment and were effective in upper gastrointestinal and genitourinary malignancies. CONCLUSION: SLFN11 informs on the standard of care chemotherapy based on DDA and the effect of selected combinations with ATR, WEE1 or CHK1 inhibitor in a wide range of cancer types and models.

Targeting melanoma's MCL1 bias unleashes the apoptotic potential of BRAF and ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors.

BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors are effective in melanoma but resistance inevitably develops. Despite increasing the abundance of pro-apoptotic BIM and BMF, ERK1/2 pathway inhibition is predominantly cytostatic, reflecting residual pro-survival BCL2 family activity. Here, we show that uniquely low BCL-XL expression in melanoma biases the pro-survival pool towards MCL1. Consequently, BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors are synthetic lethal with the MCL1 inhibitor AZD5991, driving profound tumour cell death that requires BAK/BAX, BIM and BMF, and inhibiting tumour growth in vivo. Combination of ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors with BCL2/BCL-w/BCL-XL inhibitors is stronger in CRC, correlating with a low MCL1:BCL-XL ratio; indeed the MCL1:BCL-XL ratio is predictive of ERK1/2 pathway inhibitor synergy with MCL1 or BCL2/BCL-w/BCL-XL inhibitors. Finally, AZD5991 delays acquired BRAFi/MEKi resistance and enhances the efficacy of an ERK1/2 inhibitor in a model of acquired BRAFi + MEKi resistance. Thus combining ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors with MCL1 antagonists in melanoma could improve therapeutic index and patient outcomes.

MEK1/2 inhibitor withdrawal reverses acquired resistance driven by BRAFV600E amplification whereas KRASG13D amplification promotes EMT-chemoresistance.

Acquired resistance to MEK1/2 inhibitors (MEKi) arises through amplification of BRAFV600E or KRASG13D to reinstate ERK1/2 signalling. Here we show that BRAFV600E amplification and MEKi resistance are reversible following drug withdrawal. Cells with BRAFV600E amplification are addicted to MEKi to maintain a precise level of ERK1/2 signalling that is optimal for cell proliferation and survival, and tumour growth in vivo. Robust ERK1/2 activation following MEKi withdrawal drives a p57KIP2-dependent G1 cell cycle arrest and senescence or expression of NOXA and cell death, selecting against those cells with amplified BRAFV600E. p57KIP2 expression is required for loss of BRAFV600E amplification and reversal of MEKi resistance. Thus, BRAFV600E amplification confers a selective disadvantage during drug withdrawal, validating intermittent dosing to forestall resistance. In contrast, resistance driven by KRASG13D amplification is not reversible; rather ERK1/2 hyperactivation drives ZEB1-dependent epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and chemoresistance, arguing strongly against the use of drug holidays in cases of KRASG13D amplification.

Resistance to ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors; sweet spots, fitness deficits and drug addiction.

MEK1/2 inhibitors are clinically approved for the treatment of BRAF-mutant melanoma, where they are used in combination with BRAF inhibitors, and are undergoing evaluation in other malignancies. Acquired resistance to MEK1/2 inhibitors, including selumetinib (AZD6244/ARRY-142866), can arise through amplification of BRAFV600E or KRASG13D to reinstate ERK1/2 signalling. We have found that BRAFV600E amplification and selumetinib resistance are fully reversible following drug withdrawal. This is because resistant cells with BRAFV600E amplification become addicted to selumetinib to maintain a precise level of ERK1/2 signalling (2%-3% of total ERK1/2 active), that is optimal for cell proliferation and survival. Selumetinib withdrawal drives ERK1/2 activation outside of this critical "sweet spot" (~20%-30% of ERK1/2 active) resulting in a p57KIP2-dependent G1 cell cycle arrest and senescence or expression of NOXA and cell death with features of autophagy; these terminal responses select against cells with amplified BRAFV600E. ERK1/2-dependent p57KIP2 expression is required for loss of BRAFV600E amplification and determines the rate of reversal of selumetinib resistance. Growth of selumetinib-resistant cells with BRAFV600E amplification as tumour xenografts also requires the presence of selumetinib to "clamp" ERK1/2 activity within the sweet spot. Thus, BRAFV600E amplification confers a selective disadvantage or "fitness deficit" during drug withdrawal, providing a rationale for intermittent dosing to forestall resistance. Remarkably, selumetinib resistance driven by KRASG13D amplification/upregulation is not reversible. In these cells ERK1/2 reactivation does not inhibit proliferation but drives a ZEB1-dependent epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition that increases cell motility and promotes resistance to traditional chemotherapy agents. Our results reveal that the emergence of drug-addicted, MEKi-resistant cells, and the opportunity this may afford for intermittent dosing schedules ("drug holidays"), may be determined by the nature of the amplified driving oncogene (BRAFV600E vs. KRASG13D), further exemplifying the difficulties of targeting KRAS mutant tumour cells.

Control of cell death and mitochondrial fission by ERK1/2 MAP kinase signalling.

The ERK1/2 signalling pathway is best known for its role in connecting activated growth factor receptors to changes in gene expression due to activated ERK1/2 entering the nucleus and phosphorylating transcription factors. However, active ERK1/2 also translocate to a variety of other organelles including the endoplasmic reticulum, endosomes, golgi and mitochondria to access specific substrates and influence cell physiology. In this article, we review two aspects of ERK1/2 signalling at the mitochondria that are involved in regulating cell fate decisions. First, we describe the prominent role of ERK1/2 in controlling the BCL2-regulated, cell-intrinsic apoptotic pathway. In most cases ERK1/2 signalling promotes cell survival by activating prosurvival BCL2 proteins (BCL2, BCL-xL and MCL1) and repressing prodeath proteins (BAD, BIM, BMF and PUMA). This prosurvival signalling is co-opted by oncogenes to confer cancer cell-specific survival advantages and we describe how this information has been used to develop new drug combinations. However, ERK1/2 can also drive the expression of the prodeath protein NOXA to control 'autophagy or apoptosis' decisions during nutrient starvation. We also describe recent studies demonstrating a link between ERK1/2 signalling, DRP1 and the mitochondrial fission machinery and how this may influence metabolic reprogramming during tumorigenesis and stem cell reprogramming. With advances in subcellular proteomics it is likely that new roles for ERK1/2, and new substrates, remain to be discovered at the mitochondria and other organelles.

MEK1 and MEK2 inhibitors and cancer therapy: the long and winding road.

The role of the ERK signalling pathway in cancer is thought to be most prominent in tumours in which mutations in the receptor tyrosine kinases RAS, BRAF, CRAF, MEK1 or MEK2 drive growth factor-independent ERK1 and ERK2 activation and thence inappropriate cell proliferation and survival. New drugs that inhibit RAF or MEK1 and MEK2 have recently been approved or are currently undergoing late-stage clinical evaluation. In this Review, we consider the ERK pathway, focusing particularly on the role of MEK1 and MEK2, the 'gatekeepers' of ERK1/2 activity. We discuss their validation as drug targets, the merits of targeting MEK1 and MEK2 versus BRAF and the mechanisms of action of different inhibitors of MEK1 and MEK2. We also consider how some of the systems-level properties (intrapathway regulatory loops and wider signalling network connections) of the ERK pathway present a challenge for the success of MEK1 and MEK2 inhibitors, discuss mechanisms of resistance to these inhibitors, and review their clinical progress.

Intrinsic and acquired resistance to MEK1/2 inhibitors in cancer.

Recent clinical data with BRAF and MEK1/2 [MAPK (mitogen-activated protein kinase)/ERK (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase) kinase 1/2] inhibitors have demonstrated the remarkable potential of targeting the RAF-MEK1/2-ERK1/2 signalling cascade for the treatment of certain cancers. Despite these advances, however, only a subset of patients respond to these agents in the first instance, and, of those that do, acquired resistance invariably develops after several months. Studies in vitro have identified various mechanisms that can underpin intrinsic and acquired resistance to MEK1/2 inhibitors, and these frequently recapitulate those observed clinically. In the present article, we review these mechanisms and also discuss recent advances in our understanding of how MEK1/2 inhibitor activity is influenced by pathway feedback.

Lysine acetylation controls local protein conformation by influencing proline isomerization.

Gene transcription responds to stress and metabolic signals to optimize growth and survival. Histone H3 (H3) lysine 4 trimethylation (K4me3) facilitates state changes, but how levels are coordinated with the environment is unclear. Here, we show that isomerization of H3 at the alanine 15-proline 16 (A15-P16) peptide bond is influenced by lysine 14 (K14) and controls gene-specific K4me3 by balancing the actions of Jhd2, the K4me3 demethylase, and Spp1, a subunit of the Set1 K4 methyltransferase complex. Acetylation at K14 favors the A15-P16trans conformation and reduces K4me3. Environmental stress-induced genes are most sensitive to the changes at K14 influencing H3 tail conformation and K4me3. By contrast, ribosomal protein genes maintain K4me3, required for their repression during stress, independently of Spp1, K14, and P16. Thus, the plasticity in control of K4me3, via signaling to K14 and isomerization at P16, informs distinct gene regulatory mechanisms and processes involving K4me3.

The increase in BIK expression following ERK1/2 pathway inhibition is a consequence of G1 cell-cycle arrest and not a direct effect on BIK protein stability.

BIK (BCL2-interacting killer) is a pro-apoptotic BH3 (BCL2 homology domain 3)-only protein and a member of the BCL2 protein family. It was proposed recently that BIK abundance is controlled by ERK1/2 (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase 1/2)-catalysed phosphorylation, which targets the protein for proteasome-dependent destruction. In the present study, we examined ERK1/2-dependent regulation of BIK, drawing comparisons with BIM(EL) (BCL2-interacting mediator of cell death; extra long), a well-known target of ERK1/2. In many ERK1/2-dependent tumour cell lines, inhibition of BRAF(V600E) (v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homologue B1, V600E mutation) or MEK1/2 (mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK kinase 1/2) had very little effect on BIK expression, whereas BIM(EL) was strongly up-regulated. In some cell lines we observed a modest increase in BIK expression; however, this was not apparent until ~16 h or later, whereas BIM(EL) expression increased rapidly within a few hours. Although BIK was degraded by the proteasome, we found no evidence that this was regulated by ERK1/2 signalling. Rather, the delayed increase in BIK expression was prevented by actinomycin D, and was accompanied by increases in BIK mRNA. Finally, the delayed increase in BIK expression following ERK1/2 inhibition was phenocopied by a highly selective CDK4/6 (cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6) inhibitor, which caused a strong G1 cell-cycle arrest without inhibiting ERK1/2 signalling. In contrast, BIM(EL) expression was induced by ERK1/2 inhibition, but not by CDK4/6 inhibition. We conclude that BIK expression is not subject to direct regulation by the ERK1/2 pathway; rather, we propose that BIK expression is cell-cycle-dependent and increases as a consequence of the G1 cell-cycle arrest which results from inhibition of ERK1/2 signalling.

Adaptation to mTOR kinase inhibitors by amplification of eIF4E to maintain cap-dependent translation.

The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) protein kinase coordinates responses to nutrients and growth factors and is an anti-cancer drug target. To anticipate how cells will respond and adapt to chronic mTOR complex (mTORC)1 and mTORC2 inhibition, we have generated SW620 colon cancer cells with acquired resistance to the ATP-competitive mTOR kinase inhibitor AZD8055 (SW620:8055R). AZD8055 inhibited mTORC1 and mTORC2 signalling and caused a switch from cap-dependent to internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-dependent translation in parental SW620 cells. In contrast, SW620:8055R cells exhibited a loss of S6K signalling, an increase in expression of the eukaryotic translation initiation factor eIF4E and increased cap-dependent mRNA translation. As a result, the expression of CCND1 and MCL1, proteins encoded by eIF4E-sensitive and cap-dependent transcripts, was refractory to AZD8055 in SW620:8055R cells. RNAi-mediated knockdown of eIF4E reversed acquired resistance to AZD8055 in SW620:8055R cells; furthermore, increased expression of eIF4E was sufficient to reduce sensitivity to AZD8055 in a heterologous cell system. Finally, although the combination of MEK1/2 inhibitors with mTOR inhibitors is an attractive rational drug combination, SW620:8055R cells were actually cross-resistant to the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244). These results exemplify the convergence of ERK1/2 and mTOR signalling at eIF4E, and the key role of eIF4E downstream of mTOR in maintaining cell proliferation. They also have important implications for therapeutic strategies based around mTOR and the MEK1/2-ERK1/2 pathway.

That which does not kill me makes me stronger; combining ERK1/2 pathway inhibitors and BH3 mimetics to kill tumour cells and prevent acquired resistance.

UNLABELLED: Oncogenic mutations in RAS or BRAF can drive the inappropriate activation of the ERK1/2. In many cases, tumour cells adapt to become addicted to this deregulated ERK1/2 signalling for their proliferation, providing a therapeutic window for tumour-selective growth inhibition. As a result, inhibition of ERK1/2 signalling by BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors is an attractive therapeutic strategy. Indeed, the first BRAF inhibitor, vemurafenib, has now been approved for clinical use, while clinical evaluation of MEK1/2 inhibitors is at an advanced stage. Despite this progress, it is apparent that tumour cells adapt quickly to these new targeted agents so that tumours with acquired resistance can emerge within 6-9 months of primary treatment. One of the major reasons for this is that tumour cells typically respond to BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors by undergoing a G1 cell cycle arrest rather than dying. Indeed, although inhibition of ERK1/2 invariably increases the expression of pro-apoptotic BCL2 family proteins, tumour cells undergo minimal apoptosis. This cytostatic response may simply provide the cell with the opportunity to adapt and acquire resistance. Here we discuss recent studies that demonstrate that combination of BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors with inhibitors of pro-survival BCL2 proteins is synthetic lethal for ERK1/2-addicted tumour cells. This combination effectively transforms the cytostatic response of BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors into a striking apoptotic cell death response. This not only augments the primary efficacy of BRAF and MEK1/2 inhibitors but delays the onset of acquired resistance to these agents, validating their combination in the clinic. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on Emerging Therapeutic Aspects in Oncology. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2013.169.issue-8.

The BH3 mimetic ABT-263 synergizes with the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib/AZD6244 to promote BIM-dependent tumour cell death and inhibit acquired resistance.

Tumour cells typically exhibit a G(1) cell cycle arrest in response to the MEK1/2 [mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase) kinase 1/2] inhibitor selumetinib, but do not die, and thus they acquire resistance. In the present study we examined the effect of combining selumetinib with the BH3 [BCL2 (B-cell lymphoma 2) homology domain 3]-mimetic BCL2 inhibitor ABT-263. Although either drug alone caused little tumour cell death, the two agents combined to cause substantial caspase-dependent cell death and inhibit long-term clonogenic survival of colorectal cancer and melanoma cell lines with BRAF(V600E) or RAS mutations. This cell death absolutely required BAX (BCL2-associated X protein) and was inhibited by RNAi (RNA interference)-mediated knockdown of BIM (BCL2-interacting mediator of cell death) in the BRAF(V600E)-positive COLO205 cell line. When colorectal cancer cell lines were treated with selumetinib plus ABT-263 we observed a striking reduction in the incidence of cells emerging with acquired resistance to selumetinib. Similar results were observed when we combined ABT-263 with the BRAF(V600E)-selective inhibitor PLX4720, but only in cells expressing BRAF(V600E). Finally, cancer cells in which acquired resistance to selumetinib arises through BRAF(V600E) amplification remained sensitive to ABT-263, whereas selumetinib-resistant HCT116 cells (KRAS(G13D) amplification) were cross-resistant to ABT-263. Thus the combination of a BCL2 inhibitor and an ERK1/2 pathway inhibitor is synthetic lethal in ERK1/2-addicted tumour cells, delays the onset of acquired resistance and in some cases overcomes acquired resistance to selumetinib.

Tumour cell responses to MEK1/2 inhibitors: acquired resistance and pathway remodelling.

The Raf/MEK1/2 [mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK (extracellular-signal-regulated kinase) kinase 1/2]/ERK1/2 signalling pathway is frequently activated in human tumours due to mutations in BRAF or KRAS. B-Raf and MEK1/2 inhibitors are currently undergoing clinical evaluation, but their ultimate success is likely to be limited by acquired drug resistance. We have used colorectal cancer cell lines harbouring mutations in B-Raf or K-Ras to model acquired resistance to the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib (AZD6244). Selumetinib-resistant cells were refractory to other MEK1/2 inhibitors in cell proliferation assays and exhibited a marked increase in MEK1/2 and ERK1/2 activity and cyclin D1 abundance when assessed in the absence of inhibitor. This was driven by a common mechanism in which resistant cells exhibited an intrachromosomal amplification of their respective driving oncogene, B-Raf V600E or K-RasG13D. Despite the increased signal flux from Raf to MEK1/2, resistant cells maintained in drug actually exhibited the same level of ERK1/2 activity as parental cells, indicating that the pathway is remodelled by feedback controls to reinstate the normal level of ERK1/2 signalling that is required and sufficient to maintain proliferation in these cells. These results provide important new insights into how tumour cells adapt to new therapeutics and highlight the importance of homoeostatic control mechanisms in the Raf/MEK1/2/ERK1/2 signalling cascade.