Membrane interactions of the globular domain and the hypervariable region of KRAS4b define its unique diffusion behavior

  1. Debanjan Goswami
  2. De Chen
  3. Yue Yang
  4. Prabhakar R Gudla
  5. John Columbus
  6. Karen Worthy
  7. Megan Rigby
  8. Madeline Wheeler
  9. Suman Mukhopadhyay
  10. Katie Powell
  11. William Burgan
  12. Vanessa Wall
  13. Dominic Esposito
  14. Dhirendra Simanshu
  15. Felice C Lightstone
  16. Dwight V Nissley
  17. Frank McCormick
  18. Thomas Turbyville  Is a corresponding author
  1. Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, United States
  2. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, United States
  3. University of California, San Francisco, United States

Abstract

The RAS proteins are GTP-dependent switches that regulate signaling pathways and are frequently mutated in cancer. RAS proteins concentrate in the plasma membrane via lipid-tethers and hypervariable side-chain interactions in distinct nano-domains. However, little is known about RAS membrane dynamics and the details of RAS activation of downstream signaling. Here we characterize RAS in live human and mouse cells using single molecule tracking methods and estimate RAS mobility parameters. KRAS4b exhibits confined mobility with three diffusive states distinct from the other RAS isoforms (KRAS4a, NRAS, and HRAS); and although most of the amino acid differences between RAS isoforms lie within the hypervariable region, the additional confinement of KRAS4b is largely determined by the protein's globular domain. To understand the altered mobility of an oncogenic KRAS4b we used complementary experimental and molecular dynamic simulation approaches to reveal a detailed mechanism.

Data availability

For the molecular dynamic simulations, trajectories and inputs have been provided on the webpage at https://bbs.llnl.gov/KRAS4b-simulation-data.html.For the images, we will access a suitable repository, and make the data freely available.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Debanjan Goswami

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5910-3811
  2. De Chen

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Yue Yang

    Biosciences and Biotechnology Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Prabhakar R Gudla

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. John Columbus

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Karen Worthy

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Megan Rigby

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Madeline Wheeler

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Suman Mukhopadhyay

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Katie Powell

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. William Burgan

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Vanessa Wall

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Dominic Esposito

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Dhirendra Simanshu

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Felice C Lightstone

    Biosciences and Biotechnology Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1465-426X
  16. Dwight V Nissley

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Frank McCormick

    UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Thomas Turbyville

    RAS Initiative, Cancer Research Technology Program, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States
    For correspondence
    turbyvillet@mail.nih.gov
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2638-9520

Funding

National Cancer Institute (NIH Contract HHSN261200800001E)

  • De Chen
  • Prabhakar R Gudla
  • John Columbus
  • Karen Worthy
  • Megan Rigby
  • Suman Mukhopadhyay
  • Katie Powell
  • William Burgan
  • Vanessa Wall
  • Dominic Esposito
  • Dhirendra Simanshu
  • Dwight V Nissley
  • Thomas Turbyville

U.S. Department of Energy (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. LLNL-JRNL-771099-DRAFT)

  • Yue Yang
  • Felice C Lightstone

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Roger J Davis, University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States

Version history

  1. Received: April 12, 2019
  2. Accepted: January 2, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 20, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 6, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 2,584
    views
  • 410
    downloads
  • 23
    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. Debanjan Goswami
  2. De Chen
  3. Yue Yang
  4. Prabhakar R Gudla
  5. John Columbus
  6. Karen Worthy
  7. Megan Rigby
  8. Madeline Wheeler
  9. Suman Mukhopadhyay
  10. Katie Powell
  11. William Burgan
  12. Vanessa Wall
  13. Dominic Esposito
  14. Dhirendra Simanshu
  15. Felice C Lightstone
  16. Dwight V Nissley
  17. Frank McCormick
  18. Thomas Turbyville
(2020)
Membrane interactions of the globular domain and the hypervariable region of KRAS4b define its unique diffusion behavior
eLife 9:e47654.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47654

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47654

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    Xia Shen, Xiang Peng ... Chen-Ying Liu
    Research Article

    The role of processing bodies (P-bodies) in tumorigenesis and tumor progression is not well understood. Here, we showed that the oncogenes YAP/TAZ promote P-body formation in a series of cancer cell lines. Mechanistically, both transcriptional activation of the P-body-related genes SAMD4A, AJUBA, and WTIP and transcriptional suppression of the tumor suppressor gene PNRC1 are involved in enhancing the effects of YAP/TAZ on P-body formation in colorectal cancer (CRC) cells. By reexpression of PNRC1 or knockdown of P-body core genes (DDX6, DCP1A, and LSM14A), we determined that disruption of P-bodies attenuates cell proliferation, cell migration, and tumor growth induced by overexpression of YAP5SA in CRC. Analysis of a pancancer CRISPR screen database (DepMap) revealed co-dependencies between YAP/TEAD and the P-body core genes and correlations between the mRNA levels of SAMD4A, AJUBA, WTIP, PNRC1, and YAP target genes. Our study suggests that the P-body is a new downstream effector of YAP/TAZ, which implies that reexpression of PNRC1 or disruption of P-bodies is a potential therapeutic strategy for tumors with active YAP.

    1. Cancer Biology
    Pirunthan Perampalam, James I MacDonald ... Frederick A Dick
    Research Article

    Dormancy in cancer is a clinical state in which residual disease remains undetectable for a prolonged duration. At a cellular level, rare cancer cells cease proliferation and survive chemotherapy and disseminate disease. We created a suspension culture model of high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) dormancy and devised a novel CRISPR screening approach to identify survival genes in this context. In combination with RNA-seq, we discovered the Netrin signaling pathway as critical to dormant HGSOC cell survival. We demonstrate that Netrin-1, –3, and its receptors are essential for low level ERK activation to promote survival, and that Netrin activation of ERK is unable to induce proliferation. Deletion of all UNC5 family receptors blocks Netrin signaling in HGSOC cells and compromises viability during the dormancy step of dissemination in xenograft assays. Furthermore, we demonstrate that Netrin-1 and –3 overexpression in HGSOC correlates with poor outcome. Specifically, our experiments reveal that Netrin overexpression elevates cell survival in dormant culture conditions and contributes to greater spread of disease in a xenograft model of abdominal dissemination. This study highlights Netrin signaling as a key mediator HGSOC cancer cell dormancy and metastasis.