The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK signaling pathway is routinely disregulated in many forms of cancer. Activating mutations in BRAF are found in almost half of all melanomas, and of these mutations, almost 90% involve a valine to glutamic acid transition at position 600 (BRAF^V600E) (Solit and Rosen 2014). The therapeutic effect of drugs that target this form of BRAF have proved less efficacious than expected, due to an unexpected effect in cells that are BRAF^WT; in these cells, drugs that target BRAF paradoxically activate rather than repress downstream signaling (Hall-Jackson et al., 1999a; Hall-Jackson et al., 1999b). In their 2010 paper, Heidorn and colleagues examined the mechanism of action behind this paradoxical activation of MEK/ERK signaling. Heidorn and colleagues first observed that paradoxical activation occurred only in the context of BRAF^WT and activated RAS, an observation confirmed by two other groups (Hatzivassiliou et al., 2010; Poulikakos et al., 2010). Dissecting the mechanism, they reported that the formation of BRAF/CRAF heterodimers was necessary for pathway activation, and formation of those heterodimers required active RAS signaling.

In Figure 1A, Heidorn and colleagues examined pathway activation in response to a range of drugs. The inhibitors, sorafenib, which targets and represses both BRAF and CRAF, PLX4720, which is highly selective for and inhibits the activity of BRAF^V600E. 885-A, which specifically targets and inhibits BRAF, and the MEK inhibitor PC184352 were examined. As expected, all four drugs blocked MEK/ERK activation in BRAF^V600E A375 cells. However, in cells with active RAS, such as D04 cells (BRAF^WT/NRAS^Q61L), MEK/ERK signaling was not repressed by PLX4720 or 885-A. This paradoxical activation in BRAF^WT cells was also observed by several other groups (Carnahan et al., 2010; Joseph et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2010; Kaplan et al., 2011). This experiment will be replicated in Protocol 1.

Previous work had shown that activated RAS in melanoma signals through CRAF, while normal signaling in healthy melanocytes is accomplished through BRAF (Dumaz et al., 2006). To determine if CRAF was required for paradoxical pathway activation, Heidorn and colleagues treated D04 cells with siRNAs targeting NRAS and CRAF. Knockdown of either NRAS or CRAF abrogated activation of MEK/ERK by 885-A, as seen in Figure 1B. This experiment will be replicated in Protocol 2. The necessity of CRAF also explains the lack of activation upon treatment with sorafenib observed in Figure 1A; since sorafenib inhibits both BRAF and CRAF, it does not result in pathway activation.

Since activated RAS is known to drive heterodimerization of BRAF and CRAF (Weber et al., 2001), Heidorn and colleagues also tested if drug binding drove heterodimerization of BRAF and CRAF, and if this heterodimerization was dependent on active RAS signaling. In Figure 3A, they transfected D04 cells with a mutant version of CRAF that was unable to bind to RAS (CRAF^R89L). Immunoprecipitation experiments showed that while CRAF^WT was able to bind to BRAF in the presence of activated RAS, CRAF^R89L was unable to bind to BRAF. This key experiment will be replicated in Protocol 3.

The authors showed that BRAF binds to CRAF but only in the presence of WT RAS, not oncogenic RAS. In Figure 3B, myc-tagged BRAF or myc-tagged mutant BRAF (^R188LBRAF) were transfected into D04 cells and treated with either DMSO(-) or 885-A(+). The authors show that mutant of BRAF (^R188LBRAF) does not bind to CRAF even in the presence of 885-A, which induces RAS activity.

After confirming that drug binding to BRAF drove BRAF binding to CRAF, Heidorn and colleagues tested a kinase dead version of BRAF (BRAF^D594A) (Figure 4D). Interestingly, this version of BRAF still bound to CRAF, indicating that it is not drug binding per se, but inhibition of BRAF activity, that drives BRAF binding to CRAF and paradoxical activation of MEK/ERK. This key experiment will be replicated in Protocol 4.

Packer and colleagues extended the work of Heidorn and colleagues to examine if other more broadly targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors were also able to paradoxically activate the RAS-RAF pathway. They observed paradoxical pathway activation in D04 cells after treatment with imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, and the BRAF inhibitor SB590885. As in Heidorn et al., paradoxical activation only occurred in cells with BRAF^WT and required active RAS, as knockdown of NRAS abrogated the effect. Interestingly, while Heidorn and colleagues reported that knockdown of CRAF alone was able to block paradoxical activation, Packer and colleagues reported that only combined knockdown of BRAF and CRAF was able to block paradoxical activation (Packer et al., 2011). Work by Rebocho and colleagues and by Kaplan and colleagues aligned with Heidorn’s findings that silencing of CRAF alone was able to abrogate paradoxical activation (Aplin et al., 2011; Rebocho and Marais 2012). Packer and colleagues also reported that BRAF/CRAF heterodimerization was dependent upon RAS by demonstrating that CRAF^R89L was unable to form heterodimers with BRAF (Packer et al., 2011).

Activation of NRAS signaling appears to be a key step in acquired drug resistance, supporting the hypothesis that paradoxical activation can only occur in the context of active RAS signaling. Su and colleagues derived a drug-resistant BRAF^V600E melanoma cell line by growing A375 cells in the presence of vemurafenib (PLX4032, a BRAF^V600E inhibitor). Interestingly, drug resistance was dependent on expression of CRAF, and the resistant lines that emerged had acquired an activating mutation in KRAS (Su et al., 2012). Nazarian and colleagues also observed the acquisition of activating mutations in NRAS when they derived PLX4032-resistant cell lines (Nazarian et al., 2010). Lidsky and colleagues also showed that increased levels of NRAS were key to vemurafenib resistance, although they did not observe any activating mutations in their resistant cell lines (Lidsky et al., 2014).

Unless otherwise noted, all protocol information was derived from the original paper, references from the original paper, or information obtained directly from the authors. An asterisk (*) indicates data or information provided by the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology core team. A hashtag (#) indicates information provided by the replicating lab.

1. 1. Aplin AE
   2. Kaplan FM
   3. Shao Y

   (2011) Mechanisms of resistance to RAF inhibitors in melanoma

   Journal of Investigative Dermatology 131:1817–1820.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2011.147

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Carnahan J
   2. Beltran PJ
   3. Babij C
   4. Le Q
   5. Rose MJ
   6. Vonderfecht S
   7. Kim JL
   8. Smith AL
   9. Nagapudi K
   10. Broome MA
   11. Fernando M
   12. Kha H
   13. Belmontes B
   14. Radinsky R
   15. Kendall R
   16. Burgess TL

   (2010) Selective and potent raf inhibitors paradoxically stimulate normal cell proliferation and tumor growth

   Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 9:2399–2410.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-10-0181

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Dumaz N
   2. Hayward R
   3. Martin J
   4. Ogilvie L
   5. Hedley D
   6. Curtin JA
   7. Bastian BC
   8. Springer C
   9. Marais R

   (2006) In melanoma, RAS mutations are accompanied by switching signaling from BRAF to CRAF and disrupted cyclic AMP signaling

   Cancer Research 66:9483–9491.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-4227

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Errington TM
   2. Iorns E
   3. Gunn W
   4. Tan FE
   5. Lomax J
   6. Nosek BA

   (2014) An open investigation of the reproducibility of cancer biology research

   eLife 3:.

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04333

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Faul F
   2. Erdfelder E
   3. Lang A-G
   4. Buchner A

   (2007) G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences

   Behavior Research Methods 39:175–191.

   https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Hatzivassiliou G
   2. Song K
   3. Yen I
   4. Brandhuber BJ
   5. Anderson DJ
   6. Alvarado R
   7. Ludlam MJC
   8. Stokoe D
   9. Gloor SL
   10. Vigers G
   11. Morales T
   12. Aliagas I
   13. Liu B
   14. Sideris S
   15. Hoeflich KP
   16. Jaiswal BS
   17. Seshagiri S
   18. Koeppen H
   19. Belvin M
   20. Friedman LS
   21. Malek S

   (2010) RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth

   Nature 464:431–435.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08833

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Hall-Jackson CA
   2. Eyers PA
   3. Cohen P
   4. Goedert M
   5. Tom Boyle F
   6. Hewitt N
   7. Plant H
   8. Hedge P

   (1999a) Paradoxical activation of raf by a novel raf inhibitor

   Chemistry & Biology 6:559–568.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-5521(99)80088-X

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Hall-Jackson CA
   2. Goedert M
   3. Hedge P
   4. Cohen P

   (1999b) Effect of SB 203580 on the activity of c-raf in vitro and in vivo

   Oncogene 18:2047–2054.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1202603

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Heidorn SJ
   2. Milagre C
   3. Whittaker S
   4. Nourry A
   5. Niculescu-Duvas I
   6. Dhomen N
   7. Hussain J
   8. Reis-Filho JS
   9. Springer CJ
   10. Pritchard C
   11. Marais R

   (2010) Kinase-dead BRAF and oncogenic RAS cooperate to drive tumor progression through CRAF

   Cell 140:209–221.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.12.040

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Joseph EW
    2. Pratilas CA
    3. Poulikakos PI
    4. Tadi M
    5. Wang W
    6. Taylor BS
    7. Halilovic E
    8. Persaud Y
    9. Xing F
    10. Viale A
    11. Tsai J
    12. Chapman PB
    13. Bollag G
    14. Solit DB
    15. Rosen N

    (2010) The RAF inhibitor PLX4032 inhibits ERK signaling and tumor cell proliferation in a V600E BRAF-selective manner

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107:14903–14908.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008990107

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Kaplan FM
    2. Shao Y
    3. Mayberry MM
    4. Aplin AE

    (2011) Hyperactivation of MEK–ERK1/2 signaling and resistance to apoptosis induced by the oncogenic b-RAF inhibitor, PLX4720, in mutant n-RAS melanoma cells

    Oncogene 30:366–371.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.408

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Lakens D

    (2013) Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs

    Frontiers in Psychology 4:863.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Lee JT
    2. Li L
    3. Brafford PA
    4. van den Eijnden M
    5. Halloran MB
    6. Sproesser K
    7. Haass NK
    8. Smalley KSM
    9. Tsai J
    10. Bollag G
    11. Herlyn M

    (2010) PLX4032, a potent inhibitor of the b-raf V600E oncogene, selectively inhibits V600E-positive melanomas

    Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research 23:820–827.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-148X.2010.00763.x

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Lidsky M
    2. Antoun G
    3. Speicher P
    4. Adams B
    5. Turley R
    6. Augustine C
    7. Tyler D
    8. Ali-Osman F

    (2014) Mitogen-activated protein kinase (mAPK) hyperactivation and enhanced NRAS expression drive acquired vemurafenib resistance in V600E BRAF melanoma cells

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 289:27714–27726.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.532432

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Nazarian R
    2. Shi H
    3. Wang Q
    4. Kong X
    5. Koya RC
    6. Lee H
    7. Chen Z
    8. Lee M-K
    9. Attar N
    10. Sazegar H
    11. Chodon T
    12. Nelson SF
    13. McArthur G
    14. Sosman JA
    15. Ribas A
    16. Lo RS

    (2010) Melanomas acquire resistance to b-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or n-RAS upregulation

    Nature 468:973–977.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09626

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Packer LM
    2. Rana S
    3. Hayward R
    4. O'Hare T
    5. Eide CA
    6. Rebocho A
    7. Heidorn S
    8. Zabriskie MS
    9. Niculescu-Duvaz I
    10. Druker BJ
    11. Springer C
    12. Marais R

    (2011) Nilotinib and MEK inhibitors induce synthetic lethality through paradoxical activation of RAF in drug-resistant chronic myeloid leukemia

    Cancer Cell 20:715–727.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2011.11.004

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Poulikakos PI
    2. Zhang C
    3. Bollag G
    4. Shokat KM
    5. Rosen N

    (2010) RAF inhibitors transactivate RAF dimers and ERK signalling in cells with wild-type BRAF

    Nature 464:427–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08902

    • Google Scholar
18. Website

    1. R Core Team

    (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

    http://www.R-project.org/
19. 1. Rebocho AP
    2. Marais R

    (2013) ARAF acts as a scaffold to stabilize BRAF:CRAF heterodimers

    Oncogene 32:3207–3212.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2012.330

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Solit DB
    2. Rosen N

    (2014) Towards a unified model of RAF inhibitor resistance

    Cancer Discovery 4:27–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0961

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Su F
    2. Viros A
    3. Milagre C
    4. Trunzer K
    5. Bollag G
    6. Spleiss O
    7. Reis-Filho JS
    8. Kong X
    9. Koya RC
    10. Flaherty KT
    11. Chapman PB
    12. Kim MJ
    13. Hayward R
    14. Martin M
    15. Yang H
    16. Wang Q
    17. Hilton H
    18. Hang JS
    19. Noe J
    20. Lambros M
    21. Geyer F
    22. Dhomen N
    23. Niculescu-Duvaz I
    24. Zambon A
    25. Niculescu-Duvaz D
    26. Preece N
    27. Robert L
    28. Otte NJ
    29. Mok S
    30. Kee D
    31. Ma Y
    32. Zhang C
    33. Habets G
    34. Burton EA
    35. Wong B
    36. Nguyen H
    37. Kockx M
    38. Andries L
    39. Lestini B
    40. Nolop KB
    41. Lee RJ
    42. Joe AK
    43. Troy JL
    44. Gonzalez R
    45. Hutson TE
    46. Puzanov I
    47. Chmielowski B
    48. Springer CJ
    49. McArthur GA
    50. Sosman JA
    51. Lo RS
    52. Ribas A
    53. Marais R
    54. Milagre C
    55. Trunzer K

    (2012) RAS mutations in cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas in patients treated with BRAF inhibitors

    New England Journal of Medicine 366:207–215.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1105358

    • Google Scholar
22. Book

    1. Team RC

    (2015)

    R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

    Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Weber CK
    2. Slupsky JR
    3. Kalmes HA
    4. Rapp UR

    (2001)

    Active ras induces heterodimerization of cRaf and BRaf

    Cancer Research 61:3595–3598.

    • Google Scholar

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Registered report: Kinase-Dead BRAF and Oncogenic RAS Cooperate to Drive Tumor Progression through CRAF" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been favorably evaluated by Charles Sawyers (Senior editor) and four reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

The 2010 paper, "Kinase-Dead BRAF and Oncogenic RAS Cooperate to Drive Tumor Progression through CRAF" by Heidorn et al., showed 1) selective BRAF inhibitors in the presence of oncogenic RAS led to RAS-dependent BRAF:CRAF dimerization and RAS-dependent activation of MEK-ERK signaling; 2) kinase-dead BRAF mimics the effects of BRAF-selective inhibitors; and 3) kinase-dead BRAF and oncogenic RAS cooperate to induce melanoma in vivo. The authors of the Reproducibility Project propose to replicate 4 figures. The first three figures (Figures 1A, 1B, and 3A) will support the first finding of the paper and the last figure of the proposal (Figure 4D) will support the second finding. While the proposed replicated figures do not address the third conclusion at all, it is understood that duplication of animal experiments might be considered to be unethical.

Figure 1A demonstrates that selective BRAF inhibitors deplete ERK signaling in BRAF mutant cell lines while promoting signaling in cells with WT BRAF and mutant RAS (NRAS). The authors propose to use only two lines, A375 which is BRAF^V600E and D04 which is Ras mutant. They will only use PD, Sorafenib and SB and have chosen to not use PLX4720. The authors might wish to reconsider their decision to not repeat with PLX4720. The data have been repeated many times by others, but the data, that PLX induces paradoxical activation and this is dependent on CRAF is a key finding of this figure.

Figure 1B shows that activation of MEK-ERK signaling was abrogated in the mutant RAS cell line (D04) by transiently depleting NRAS before treatment with the BRAF inhibitor (885-A).

Figure 3A confirms that CRAF must interact with RAS to promote BRAF:CRAF dimerization. Finally, Figure 4D shows that kinase-dead BRAF (BRAF^D594A), but not BRAF^WT, mimics BRAF inhibition and heterodimerizes with CRAF in NRAS-mutant cells (D04).

Figure 4D: Here it is shown that a specific kinase dead form of BRAF^D594A, can bind constitutively to CRAF. This is a straightforward experiment and suggests that BRAF inhibition is sufficient to stimulate dimer formation with CRAF.

The reviewers recommend that the replication study should be expanded to include:

Figure 2A: The authors show that Sorafenib strongly induces dimers between BRAF and CRAF. This was confirmed by Rosen but Therrien suggests that it doesn't induce strong dimers. Thus, it would be of interest to validate this finding.

Figure 2B: The authors suggest that the inability to detect PLX induced dimers between BRAF and CRAF is feedback phosphorylation because of pathway activation. thus, they show that MEK inhibition (which blocks downstream activation), allows for weak detection of PLX induced BRAF/CRAF dimers. This explained how PLX could induce paradoxical activation. However, recent structural studies and work from the Theirrien group suggests that PLX prevents dimer formation because it moves the aC helix. This model is in conflict with the data in Figure 2B. The possibility that weak dimers are formed which are inhibited by MEK activation could be a simple resolution to this issue.

Figure 3B: A key finding of the original study is that RAS interaction with both CRAF and BRAF is required to induce BRAF:CRAF dimerization in the presence of a BRAF inhibitor.

Based on the reasoning outlined above, the reviewers recommend that the replication study should be expanded to include Figures 2A, 2B & 3B.

Specific comments on detailed protocols:

1) Protocol 2:

A) In Step 2, the authors should use a non-targeting siRNA in addition to their "Mock Transfection" control. It is unclear why the authors use the term "Mock siRNA" in their confirmatory analysis plan when their mock transfection clearly states 0.6 μL of media (not non-targeting siRNA).

2) Protocol 3:

A) There is a minor concern that a different transfection protocol will be used. Nucleofection will be replaced with a lipid based transfection reagent. Significant differences in expression could lead to differences in results.

B) It is unclear why the authors list an NRAS antibody in Protocol 3 and not a CRAF antibody when the intent to the protocol is to immunoprecipitate CRAF.

C) Step 3b states: "Freeze the remaining lysate (-20C) to be used for Step 3. Save an aliquot of lysate to run as a control in Step 4b." Are the authors referring to Step 4 in the first sentence? Are the authors proposing to freeze the lysate before an IP? There is substantial concern that protein-protein interactions will not survive the freeze/thaw of the lysate.

D) Step 4a, why are the authors using both anti-CRAF (C-20) and anti-myc in the same IP?

3) Protocol 4:

A) The kinase-dead BRAF mutant is listed as "VRAF^D594A" in the Materials and Reagents table.

B) The authors are proposing to freeze the lysate (Step2) before performing the IP (Step 3). As in point 2b above, there is substantial concern that protein-protein interactions will not survive the freeze/thaw of the lysate.

Statistical Comments:

For protocol 1 & 3, the authors propose use ANOVA to analyze the data. Please check for outliers and make sure that the data do not violate the assumptions of the ANOVA: normality and homoscedasticity. If the data do not fit the assumptions well enough, try to find a data transformation that makes them fit. If this doesn't work, then you will need to apply a nonparametric counterpart of ANOVA.

For protocol 2, the authors propose use MANOVA to analyze the data.

In addition to what mentioned above, MANOVA assumes that covariances of dependent variables are homogeneous across the cells of the design and that the dependent variables should not be too correlated to each other. Furthermore, it assumes that there are linear relationships among all pairs of dependent variables. Please verify these assumptions before applying MANOVA.

For protocol 4, the authors propose use unpaired student t-test to analyze the data. We would suggest the authors to use either unequal variance welch t-test or use a test for equal variances followed by appropriate test depending on the outcome of the equal variance test. Please adjust power calculation for protocol 4 accordingly.

The 2010 paper, "Kinase-Dead BRAF and Oncogenic RAS Cooperate to Drive Tumor Progression through CRAF" by Heidorn et al., showed 1) selective BRAF inhibitors in the presence of oncogenic RAS led to RAS-dependent BRAF:CRAF dimerization and RAS-dependent activation of MEK-ERK signaling; 2) kinase-dead BRAF mimics the effects of BRAF-selective inhibitors; and 3) kinase-dead BRAF and oncogenic RAS cooperate to induce melanoma in vivo. The authors of the Reproducibility Project propose to replicate 4 figures. The first three figures (Figures 1A, 1B, and 3A) will support the first finding of the paper and the last figure of the proposal (Figure 4D) will support the second finding. While the proposed replicated figures do not address the third conclusion at all, it is understood that duplication of animal experiments might be considered to be unethical.Figure 1A demonstrates that selective BRAF inhibitors deplete ERK signaling in BRAF mutant cell lines while promoting signaling in cells with WT BRAF and mutant RAS (NRAS). The authors propose to use only two lines, A375 which is BRAF V600E and D04 which is Ras mutant. They will only use PD, Sorafenib and SB and have chosen to not use PLX4720. The authors might wish to reconsider their decision to not repeat with PLX4720. The data have been repeated many times by others, but the data, that PLX induces paradoxical activation and this is dependent on CRAF is a key finding of this figure.

We agree that the key finding to this figure is demonstrating the paradoxical activation of MEK/ERK signaling in cells with WT BRAF and mutant RAS. The authors tested two specific BRAF inhibitors (PLX4720 and 885-A) and compared their effects to a compound that represses both BRAF and CRAF (Sorafenib) in cells with (A375) or without (D04) BRAF mutation to demonstrate that cells with active RAS (D04) respond with increased MEK/ERK signaling to specific BRAF inhibitors, but not with a pan RAF inhibitor. Additionally, 885-A is utilized in further experiments included in this replication attempt, specifically Figure 1B, 3A, and 3B. We agree that including all of the compounds tested would be of general interest and limits the scope of what can be analyzed by the project, but we are attempting to identify a balance of breadth of sampling for general inference with sensible investment of resources on replication projects.

Figure 1B shows that activation of MEK-ERK signaling was abrogated in the mutant RAS cell line (D04) by transiently depleting NRAS before treatment with the BRAF inhibitor (885-A). Figure 3A confirms that CRAF must interact with RAS to promote BRAF:CRAF dimerization. Finally, Figure 4D shows that kinase-dead BRAF (BRAFD594A), but not BRAFWT, mimics BRAF inhibition and heterodimerizes with CRAF in NRAS-mutant cells (D04). Figure 4D: Here it is shown that a specific kinase dead form of BRAF, D594A, can bind constitutively to CRAF. This is a straightforward experiment and suggests that BRAF inhibition is sufficient to stimulate dimer formation with CRAF. The reviewers recommend that the replication study should be expanded to include:Figure 2A: The authors show that Sorafenib strongly induces dimers between BRAF and CRAF. This was confirmed by Rosen but Therrien suggests that it doesn't induce strong dimers. Thus, it would be of interest to validate this finding.Figure 2B: The authors suggest that the inability to detect PLX induced dimers between BRAF and CRAF is feedback phosphorylation because of pathway activation. thus, they show that MEK inhibition (which blocks downstream activation), allows for weak detection of PLX induced BRAF/CRAF dimers. This explained how PLX could induce paradoxical activation. However, recent structural studies and work from the Theirrien group suggests that PLX prevents dimer formation because it moves the aC helix. This model is in conflict with the data in Figure 2B. The possibility that weak dimers are formed which are inhibited by MEK activation could be a simple resolution to this issue.Figure 3B: A key finding of the original study is that RAS interaction with both CRAF and BRAF is required to induce BRAF:CRAF dimerization in the presence of a BRAF inhibitor. Based on the reasoning outlined above, the reviewers recommend that the replication study should be expanded to include Figures 2A, 2B & 3B.

We appreciate the comments provided by the reviewers about expanding the experimental work for this replication. We agree that all of the experiments included in the original study are important, and choosing which experiments to replicate has been one of the great challenges of this project. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology (RP:CB) aims to replicate experiments that are impactful, but does not necessarily aim to replicate all the impactful experiments in any given paper. We agree that the exclusion of certain experiments limits the scope of what can be analyzed by the project, but we are attempting to identify a balance of breadth of sampling for general inference with sensible investment of resources on replication projects to determine to what extent the included experiments are reproducible. We agree that one of the key findings of the original paper was that both BRAF and CRAF must bind to RAS to create the proposed stable complex, so have included this additional experiment, reported in Figure 3B of the original study, into the revised Registered Report. However, we did not include Figures 2A and 2B, since they are not as central to the main findings of the original study even though they would be of interest to replicate considering new evidence reported by other groups. As such, we will restrict our analysis to the experiments being replicated and will not include discussion of experiments not being replicated in this study.

Specific comments on detailed protocols: 1) Protocol 2:

A) In Step 2, the authors should use a non-targeting siRNA in addition to their "Mock Transfection" control. It is unclear why the authors use the term "Mock siRNA" in their confirmatory analysis plan when their mock transfection clearly states 0.6 μL of media (not non-targeting siRNA).

The reviewers make a good point. We have removed the mock transfection and replaced the scrambled siRNA as the relevant control. We have replaced “Mock” with “Control” in the text.

2) Protocol 3:

A) There is a minor concern that a different transfection protocol will be used. Nucleofection will be replaced with a lipid based transfection reagent. Significant differences in expression could lead to differences in results.

We have expanded upon this potential impact on the outcome in the known differences section of the protocol. Since the original expression levels of are unknown, such as expression above endogenous, even if the same transfection protocol was to be used, differences in expression of the original compared to the replication could occur.

B) It is unclear why the authors list an NRAS antibody in Protocol 3 and not a CRAF antibody when the intent to the protocol is to immunoprecipitate CRAF.

Thank you for catching this error. NRAS should not be included in the Reagents list. We have removed it in the revised manuscript. The original authors only probed for myc-tagged CRAF and endogenous BRAF.

C) Step 3b states: "Freeze the remaining lysate (-20C) to be used for Step 3. Save an aliquot of lysate to run as a control in Step 4b." Are the authors referring to Step 4 in the first sentence? Are the authors proposing to freeze the lysate before an IP? There is substantial concern that protein-protein interactions will not survive the freeze/thaw of the lysate.

We agree this section is confusing. We’ve removed the reference to freezing the sample and reworded this section to state the procedure more clearly.

D) Step 4a: why are the authors using both anti-CRAF (C-20) and anti-myc in the same IP?

The incubation should only use α-myc antibody. The reference to anti-CRAF has been removed.

3) Protocol 4:

A) The kinase-dead BRAF mutant is listed as "VRAF^D594A" in the Materials and Reagents table.

We have corrected this typo.

B) The authors are proposing to freeze the lysate (Step2) before performing the IP (Step 3). As in point 2b above, there is substantial concern that protein-protein interactions will not survive the freeze/thaw of the lysate.

We agree and have removed the freezing step.

Statistical Comments: For protocol 1 & 3, authors propose use ANOVA to analyze the data. Please check for outliers and make sure that the data do not violate the assumptions of the anova: normality and homoscedasticity. If the data do not fit the assumptions well enough, try to find a data transformation that makes them fit. If this doesn't work, then you will need to apply a nonparametric counterpart of ANOVA.

We agree and at the time of analysis, we will assess the normality and homoscedasticity of the data. If necessary, we will perform the appropriate transformation in order to proceed with the proposed statistical analysis or apply a nonparametric counterpart of ANOVA We will note any changes or transformations made. We have also updated the manuscript to address this point.

For protocol 2, authors propose use MANOVA to analyze the data.

In addition to what mentioned above, MANOVA assumes that covariances of dependent variables are homogeneous across the cells of the design and that the dependent variables should not be too correlated to each other. Furthermore, it assumes that there are linear relationships among all pairs of dependent variables. Please verify these assumptions before applying MANOVA.

We agree and at the time of analyze we will check the additional assumptions of a MANOVA. We have updated the manuscript to address this point.

For protocol 4, the authors propose use unpaired student t-test to analyze the data. We would suggest the authors to use either unequal variance welch t-test or use a test for equal variances followed by appropriate test depending on the outcome of the equal variance test. Please adjust power calculation for protocol 4 accordingly.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have updated the manuscript and power calculations to reflect a Welch’s t-test.

Author details

1. Ajay Bhargava

   Shakti BioResearch LLC, Woodbridge, United States

   Contribution

   AB, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   AB: Shakti BioResearch LLC, is a Science Exchange lab.

2. Madan Anant

   Shakti BioResearch LLC, Woodbridge, United States

   Contribution

   MA, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   MA: Shakti BioResearch LLC, is a Science Exchange lab.

3. Hildegard Mack

   University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States

   Contribution

   HM, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared.

4. Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology

   Contribution

   RP:CB, NP, Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   nicole@scienceexchange.com

   Competing interests

   RP:CB: EI, FT, JL, and NP are employed by and hold shares in Science Exchange Inc.

   1. Elizabeth Iorns, Science Exchange, Palo Alto, United States
   2. Fraser Tan, Science Exchange, Palo Alto, United States
   3. Joelle Lomax, Science Exchange, Palo Alto, United States
   4. Stephen R Williams, Science Exchange, Palo Alto, United States
   5. Nicole Perfito, Science Exchange, Palo Alto, United States
   6. Timothy Errington, Center for Open Science, Charlottesville, United States

• 1,358

  Page views

• 178

  Downloads

• 5

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, Scopus.