Specific cancer associated mutations in the switch III-region of Ras increase tumorigenicity by nanocluster augmentation

  1. Maja Solman
  2. Alessio Ligabue
  3. Olga Blazevits
  4. Alok Jaiswal
  5. Yong Zhou
  6. Hong Liang
  7. Benoit Lectez
  8. Kari Kopra
  9. Camilo Guzman
  10. Harri Härmä
  11. John F Hancock
  12. Tero Aittokallio
  13. Daniel Abankwa  Is a corresponding author
  1. Åbo Akademi University, Finland
  2. University of Helsinki, Finland
  3. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, United States
  4. University of Turku, Finland

Abstract

Hotspot mutations of Ras drive cell transformation and tumorigenesis. Less frequent mutations in Ras are poorly characterized for their oncogenic potential. Yet insight into their mechanism of action may point to novel opportunities to target Ras. Here we show that several cancer-associated mutations in the switch III region moderately increase Ras activity in all isoforms. Mutants are biochemically inconspicuous, while their clustering into nanoscale signaling complexes on the plasma membrane, termed nanocluster, is augmented. Nanoclustering dictates downstream effector recruitment, MAPK-activity and tumorigenic cell proliferation. Our results describe an unprecedented mechanism of signaling protein activation in cancer.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Maja Solman

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alessio Ligabue

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Olga Blazevits

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alok Jaiswal

    Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Yong Zhou

    Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hong Liang

    Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Benoit Lectez

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Kari Kopra

    Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Camilo Guzman

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Harri Härmä

    Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy, Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. John F Hancock

    Department of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tero Aittokallio

    Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Daniel Abankwa

    Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
    For correspondence
    daniel.abankwa@btk.fi
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jonathan A Cooper, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, United States

Version history

  1. Received: May 21, 2015
  2. Accepted: August 13, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 14, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 11, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Solman et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,286
    views
  • 556
    downloads
  • 42
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Maja Solman
  2. Alessio Ligabue
  3. Olga Blazevits
  4. Alok Jaiswal
  5. Yong Zhou
  6. Hong Liang
  7. Benoit Lectez
  8. Kari Kopra
  9. Camilo Guzman
  10. Harri Härmä
  11. John F Hancock
  12. Tero Aittokallio
  13. Daniel Abankwa
(2015)
Specific cancer associated mutations in the switch III-region of Ras increase tumorigenicity by nanocluster augmentation
eLife 4:e08905.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08905

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08905

Further reading

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Xiao-Ru Chen, Karuna Dixit ... Tatyana I Igumenova
    Research Article

    Regulated hydrolysis of the phosphoinositide phosphatidylinositol(4,5)-bis-phosphate to diacylglycerol and inositol-1,4,5-P3 defines a major eukaryotic pathway for translation of extracellular cues to intracellular signaling circuits. Members of the lipid-activated protein kinase C isoenzyme family (PKCs) play central roles in this signaling circuit. One of the regulatory mechanisms employed to downregulate stimulated PKC activity is via a proteasome-dependent degradation pathway that is potentiated by peptidyl-prolyl isomerase Pin1. Here, we show that contrary to prevailing models, Pin1 does not regulate conventional PKC isoforms α and βII via a canonical cis-trans isomerization of the peptidyl-prolyl bond. Rather, Pin1 acts as a PKC binding partner that controls PKC activity via sequestration of the C-terminal tail of the kinase. The high-resolution structure of full-length Pin1 complexed to the C-terminal tail of PKCβII reveals that a novel bivalent interaction mode underlies the non-catalytic mode of Pin1 action. Specifically, Pin1 adopts a conformation in which it uses the WW and PPIase domains to engage two conserved phosphorylated PKC motifs, the turn motif and hydrophobic motif, respectively. Hydrophobic motif is a non-canonical Pin1-interacting element. The structural information combined with the results of extensive binding studies and experiments in cultured cells suggest that non-catalytic mechanisms represent unappreciated modes of Pin1-mediated regulation of AGC kinases and other key enzymes/substrates.

    1. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Christian Galicia, Giambattista Guaitoli ... Wim Versées
    Research Article

    Roco proteins entered the limelight after mutations in human LRRK2 were identified as a major cause of familial Parkinson’s disease. LRRK2 is a large and complex protein combining a GTPase and protein kinase activity, and disease mutations increase the kinase activity, while presumably decreasing the GTPase activity. Although a cross-communication between both catalytic activities has been suggested, the underlying mechanisms and the regulatory role of the GTPase domain remain unknown. Several structures of LRRK2 have been reported, but structures of Roco proteins in their activated GTP-bound state are lacking. Here, we use single-particle cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structure of a bacterial Roco protein (CtRoco) in its GTP-bound state, aided by two conformation-specific nanobodies: NbRoco1 and NbRoco2. This structure presents CtRoco in an active monomeric state, featuring a very large GTP-induced conformational change using the LRR-Roc linker as a hinge. Furthermore, this structure shows how NbRoco1 and NbRoco2 collaborate to activate CtRoco in an allosteric way. Altogether, our data provide important new insights into the activation mechanism of Roco proteins, with relevance to LRRK2 regulation, and suggest new routes for the allosteric modulation of their GTPase activity.