Cells maintain a fine balance of signals that promote or counter cell growth and division. Two sets of enzymes – called kinases and phosphatases – contribute to this balance. In general, kinases “switch on” other proteins by tagging them with a phosphate molecule. This process is called phosphorylation. Phosphatases, on the other hand, dephosphorylate these proteins, switching them off. Cancer cells often have mutations that activate kinases to drive cancer growth. The same cells can have mutations that inactivate the phosphatases or reduce their abundance. The roles of phosphatases in cancer are still being studied. One major hurdle in this research is that it is not always clear how they recognize the proteins they dephosphorylate.

Protein phosphatase 2A (or PP2A for short) is one of the phosphatases that is often mutated or deleted in human cancers. Even just reduced levels of PP2A can promote cancer. Kim, Berrios, Kim, Schade et al. used an experimental trick to decrease the phosphatase activity of PP2A in human cells growing in a dish. Biochemical analysis of these cells showed that, as expected, many proteins were now in their phosphorylated states. Unexpectedly, however, some proteins were dephosphorylated under these conditions. One of these proteins was called MAP4K4. In the case of MAP4K4, the dephosphorylated state contributes to the growth of the cancer cell. Kim et al. carried out further genetic and biochemical experiments to show that, in these cells, PP2A and MAP4K4 stay physically connected to one another. This connection was enabled by a group of proteins called the STRIPAK complex. The STRIPAK proteins directed the remaining PP2A towards MAP4K4. Low levels or activity of PP2A could, therefore, promote cancer in a different way.

Taken together, PP2A is not a single phosphatase that always turns proteins off, but rather is a dual switch that turns off some proteins while turning on others. Future experiments will explore to what extent these findings also apply in tumors. Information about how mutations in PP2A affect human cancers could suggest new targets for cancer drugs.

Protein phosphorylation plays a regulatory role in nearly all biological processes and dysregulation of protein phosphorylation contributes to many diseases. Both kinases and phosphatases have been implicated in the pathogenesis of specific cancers, and several small molecule kinase inhibitors are standard treatments in such cancers. In addition, several phosphatases have been identified as tumor suppressors (Sablina and Hahn, 2007; Lawrence et al., 2014).

PP2A, an abundant serine/threonine phosphatase in mammalian cells, is comprised of three subunits: A (structural), B (regulatory), and C (catalytic). The A and C subunits form the core enzyme and interact with different B regulatory subunits to create many distinct PP2A enzymes (Pallas et al., 1990; Chen et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2007; Shi, 2009; Sents et al., 2013). Moreover, there are two A and two C isoforms, and at least four classes of B subunits B, B’, B’’, and B’’’ (striatins), each of which exist as several different isoforms. Although the prevailing view is that the B subunits provide substrate specificity, how B subunits accomplish this regulation remains unclear (Shi, 2009; Hertz et al., 2016).

Genome characterization studies of human cancers have identified recurrent mutations and deletions involving PP2A subunits. Indeed, the PP2A Aα (PPP2R1A) subunit ranks among the most recurrently mutated gene across many cancer types (Lawrence et al., 2014). Notably, mutations in Aα occur at high frequency in premalignant endometrial lesions (Anglesio et al., 2017). PP2A is also a target of the Small T antigens (ST) of SV40 and other polyomaviruses including the human oncogenic Merkel cell polyomavirus (Pallas et al., 1990; Chen et al., 2004; Cheng et al., 2017), and this interaction contributes to cell transformation (Hahn et al., 2002). Structural studies have shown that ST disrupts the formation of a functional PP2A holoenzyme by displacing or hindering B subunit access to the PP2A core-enzyme (Chen et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2007). However, ST has a lower binding affinity in vitro for the PP2A core enzyme than B’ subunits, which suggests that ST interaction with the core enzyme may either occur prior to the B subunit binding or ST directly inhibits PP2A activity independently of subunit assembly (Chen et al., 2007).

Several investigators have used mass spectrometry to identify proteins that interact with PP2A (Goudreault et al., 2009; Herzog et al., 2012). These studies identified a large complex called the Striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase (STRIPAK) complex (Goudreault et al., 2009). The STRIPAK complex contains striatin family (STRN) proteins, several kinases, scaffolding proteins, and PP2A subunits. Indeed, striatins were initially described as non-canonical PP2A regulatory subunits (B’’’ subunits) (Moreno et al., 2000). STRIPAK complexes have also been shown to associate with members of the GCKIII kinase subfamily (MST3, STK24, and STK25) (Kean et al., 2011). In addition, mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase kinase 4 (MAP4K4), a Ste20-like kinase, although not an obligate member of the STRIPAK complex, associates with STRIPAK (Frost et al., 2012; Herzog et al., 2012; Hyodo et al., 2012). We also identified members of the STRIPAK complex, including STRN3, STRN4, STRIP1, and MAP4K4 in complex with SV40 ST (Rozenblatt-Rosen et al., 2012). Although STRIPAK comprises multiple signaling enzymes, it is unclear how disruptions to the biochemical complex integrate with or disrupt phosphorylation cascades; or whether these signaling alterations synergize with ST to mediate cellular transformation.

MAP4K4 is a serine/threonine kinase that was initially found to activate the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) signaling pathway (Yao et al., 1999), downstream of TNF-α. MAP4K4 has also been implicated in a large number of biological processes including insulin resistance, focal adhesion disassembly, as well as cellular invasion and migration (Collins et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2006; Yue et al., 2014; Danai et al., 2015; Vitorino et al., 2015). Recent studies have shown that MAP4K4 phosphorylates LATS1/2, activating the Hippo tumor suppressor pathway, leading to YAP1 inactivation (Mohseni et al., 2014; Meng et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2015). Here, we investigated the role of the STRIPAK complex and MAP4K4 in human cell transformation driven by SV40 ST and found that kinase inactivation or partial suppression of MAP4K4 replace the expression of ST in the transformation of human cells.

Several lines of evidence now implicate the disruption of specific PP2A complexes and alteration of substrate specificity by mutation, deletion, or expression of polyomavirus ST as the basis for PP2A-mediated tumor suppressor activity. These observations have led to a model in which cancer associated PP2A mutations or ST alter the composition of PP2A complexes in cells, thus altering PP2A activity toward specific substrates. However, since purified PP2A exhibits phosphatase activity towards a broad set of substrates, the mechanisms that regulate PP2A substrate specificity in cells remains incompletely understood (Yang et al., 1991). Here, we show that STRIPAK regulates the interaction of PP2A with one substrate MAP4K4 that participates in PP2A-dependent cell transformation. These observations provide a mechanism by which phosphatase activity is regulated.

Previous studies had shown that most B subunits were displaced by ST from the core enzyme and could not be detected in complex with ST (Pallas et al., 1990; Chen et al., 2007; Cho et al., 2007; Sablina et al., 2010). However, our proteomic analysis revealed that ST was bound to B’’’ subunits (striatins), as well as several other STRIPAK components. Here, we evaluated whether suppressing expression of these STRIPAK components impacted ST-induced cell transformation. We found that ST expression induced increased interactions of MAP4K4 with the STRIPAK complex, which in turn reduced levels of MAP4K4 phosphorylation and activity, thus leading to increased YAP1 activity.

Prior studies have connected STRIPAK with components of the Hippo pathway (Couzens et al., 2013), and MAP4K4 has been shown to directly activate LATS1/2 kinases (Meng et al., 2015). In addition, YAP1 has been shown to be required for SV40 ST-mediated transformation (Nguyen et al., 2014). Recent work has shown mouse polyomavirus middle T affects YAP1 by directly binding to YAP1 and suppressing its degradation (Hwang et al., 2014; Rouleau et al., 2016). We propose a model for cell transformation induced by PP2A-mediated dephosphorylation of YAP1 in Figure 8—figure supplement 1C.

We have shown that partial knockdown of MAP4K4 levels or inhibition of its kinase activity replaces ST in cell transformation, suggesting that MAP4K4 is a key PP2A substrate necessary for cell transformation. This observation is similar to our prior work that shows that only partial, but not complete, knockdown of PP2A Aα and Cα subunits leads to transformation (Chen et al., 2004; Chen et al., 2005; Sablina et al., 2010). However, we also note that the observed effects of suppressing MAP4K4 leads to a greater increase in AI growth when compared to PP2A knockdown. We speculate that this may be due to the large repertoire of PP2A substrates that may have both pro-tumorigenic, as well as anti-tumorigenic activities. Likewise, MAP4K4 has been associated with a number of different pathways and biological processes (e.g., invasion, metabolism, TNF-α) and therefore, full depletion of MAP4K4 may impact other processes that are important for transformation. Although we observed increased interactions of MAP4K4 with the STRIPAK complex in cells expressing ST, only a subset of cellular MAP4K4 interacts with STRIPAK in this context (Figure 3C), further supporting the notion that MAP4K4 unbound to the STRIPAK complex may have pro-tumorigenic roles. These observations also suggest that the STRIPAK complex plays a key role in regulating PP2A activity toward specific substrates and support a model in which ST in part induces transformation by promoting interactions of the STRIPAK complex with MAP4K4 and thereby attenuating MAP4K4 kinase activity, which in turn leads to the activation of YAP1.

The mechanism by which different PP2A complexes achieve substrate specificity has long remained elusive. Recent work has shown that proteins that harbor a conserved LxxIxE motif promote interactions with B56 subunits and facilitate subsequent PP2A substrate specificity (Hertz et al., 2016), suggesting that the substrate specificity may be achieved in part through specific interactions achieved by interactions with distinct B subunits. These findings reinforce the notion that STRIPAK serves as an organizing scaffold to bring substrates such as MAP4K4 to the PP2A complex. Indeed, recent studies have shown that MST3, a member of the STRIPAK complex, and Ste20 kinase family member MINK1 are also substrates of the STRIPAK complex (Gordon et al., 2011; Hyodo et al., 2012). It will be of interest to see if these proteins also affect transformation phenotypes in other contexts.

We found that the PP2A A-C complex continues to interact with non-canonical B’’’ subunits in the presence of ST. This observation confirms prior work that showed that both STRN and STRN3 binding do not overlap with canonical B subunit binding to Aα (Moreno et al., 2000). Furthermore, ST has been shown to be unable to compete with and displace B subunits from interacting with the PP2A core enzyme (Chen et al., 2007). Indeed, early observations involving biochemical characterization of the PP2A–ST complex showed that even in the absence of canonical B subunits, PP2A bound to ST dephosphorylated histone H1, suggesting that ST may alter the substrate specificity of PP2A (Kamibayashi et al., 1994). Here, we provide further evidence that ST alters substrate specificity by promoting MAP4K4 interaction with the STRIPAK complex. It is unclear if ST binding to PP2A Aα promotes active conformational changes that increase PP2A A-C subunit affinity for STRN4, or if there is competition among the canonical and non-canonical B subunits to engage the PP2A core enzyme complex. However, it appears that ST interactions with STRIPAK are dependent on Aα, as ST mutants that failed to bind to Aα were also unable to bind to STRIPAK (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). In addition, it was recently shown that disruption of interactions between PP2A core enzyme and canonical B subunits by mutations in PP2A Aα (P179R, R18G) promotes PP2A interactions with members of the STRIPAK complex (Haesen et al., 2016), reinforcing the notion that ST phenocopies the effect of cancer-associated PP2A mutations. We also observed that the total PP2A C subunit interactions with STRN4 did not change with ST expression (Figures 3C and 6B–C, Figure 3—figure supplement 1B–C). This finding suggests that the increased STRIPAK activity induced by ST may not be simply due to redistribution of PP2A C subunits into the STRIPAK complex but may also elicit specific changes within the STRIPAK complex. More generally, these observations suggest that striatins act as key regulators of PP2A that impart substrate specificity.

MAP4K4 is less well characterized than other members of the MAPK family but has been implicated in a number of biological processes including invasion, insulin resistance, and immunity (Collins et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2006; Huang et al., 2014; Danai et al., 2015; Vitorino et al., 2015). Indeed, MAP4K4 has been reported to promote invasion and to act as a downstream component of TNF-α signaling (Wright et al., 2003; Crawford et al., 2014; Gao et al., 2016). However, others have found evidence that MAP4K4 can also act as a candidate tumor suppressor gene (Westbrook et al., 2005), promote apoptosis downstream of SOX2 (Chen et al., 2014b; Yang et al., 2015) and serve as a regulator of the Hippo pathway, in part through direct phosphorylation of LATS1/2, leading to YAP/TAZ inhibition (Couzens et al., 2013; Mohseni et al., 2014; Meng et al., 2015; Zheng et al., 2015).

YAP1 is a downstream effector of the Hippo pathway and is involved in a number of important cellular processes including organ size control and cell proliferation. When the Hippo pathway is activated by upstream stimuli triggered by cell-cell contact, cell density and detachment, YAP1 is negatively regulated through a cascade of phosphorylation events causing YAP1 to reside in the cytoplasm and remain inactive. Therefore, tight regulation of the phosphorylation and dephosphorylation events that control the Hippo pathway and subsequent YAP1 activity is critical for preserving normal cellular homeostasis. YAP1 has also been shown to play prominent roles in oncogenic transformation, drug resistance and the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (Hong et al., 2014; Shao et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2015). YAP1 has also been shown to be required for KRAS and ST-mediated transformation, providing further evidence that YAP1 is critical for cancer development and maintenance (Hong et al., 2014; Nguyen et al., 2014; Shao et al., 2014).

Despite clear evidence for YAP1 in both cancer initiation and progression, few mutations involving YAP1 or other Hippo pathway components have been identified in cancers. Since mutations affecting PP2A subunits are commonly observed in several types of cancer, our observation that certain PP2A complexes can activate YAP1 in the context of ST-mediated transformation suggests that these cancer-associated mutations may also serve, in part, to activate YAP1.

The RNAseq data for MAP4K4 suppression experiments have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) under accession code GSE118272. Raw mass spectrometry data files for SILAC and iTRAQ are available for free download at ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084422/. MudPIT mass spectrometry data files are available for download at Massive: ftp://massive.ucsd.edu/MSV000084662/ and ProteomeXchange: http://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/cgi/GetDataset?ID=PXD016628.

1. 1. Kim JW
   2. Kim M
   3. DeCaprio J
   4. Hahn W

   (2019) NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus

   ID GSE118272. STRIPAK directs PP2A activity to promote oncogenic transformation.

   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE118272
2. 1. Berrios C
   2. Florens L
   3. Washburn MP
   4. DeCaprio J

   (2019) ProteomeXchange

   ID PXD016628. MudPIT analysis of STRN4 interacting proteins from HEK TER cells expressing either SV40 ST or GFP.

   http://proteomecentral.proteomexchange.org/cgi/GetDataset?ID=PXD016628

1. 1. Adelmant G
   2. Garg BK
   3. Tavares M
   4. Card JD
   5. Marto JA

   (2019) Tandem affinity purification and mass spectrometry (TAP-MS) for the analysis of protein complexes

   Current Protocols in Protein Science 96:e84.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cpps.84

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Aguirre AJ
   2. Meyers RM
   3. Weir BA
   4. Vazquez F
   5. Zhang CZ
   6. Ben-David U
   7. Cook A
   8. Ha G
   9. Harrington WF
   10. Doshi MB
   11. Kost-Alimova M
   12. Gill S
   13. Xu H
   14. Ali LD
   15. Jiang G
   16. Pantel S
   17. Lee Y
   18. Goodale A
   19. Cherniack AD
   20. Oh C
   21. Kryukov G
   22. Cowley GS
   23. Garraway LA
   24. Stegmaier K
   25. Roberts CW
   26. Golub TR
   27. Meyerson M
   28. Root DE
   29. Tsherniak A
   30. Hahn WC

   (2016) Genomic copy number dictates a Gene-Independent cell response to CRISPR/Cas9 targeting

   Cancer Discovery 6:914–929.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-0154

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alexander WM
   2. Ficarro SB
   3. Adelmant G
   4. Marto JA

   (2017) Multiplierz v2.0: A Python-based ecosystem for shared access and analysis of native mass spectrometry data

   Proteomics 17:1700091.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201700091

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Allen JJ
   2. Li M
   3. Brinkworth CS
   4. Paulson JL
   5. Wang D
   6. Hübner A
   7. Chou WH
   8. Davis RJ
   9. Burlingame AL
   10. Messing RO
   11. Katayama CD
   12. Hedrick SM
   13. Shokat KM

   (2007) A semisynthetic epitope for kinase substrates

   Nature Methods 4:511–516.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1048

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Anglesio MS
   2. Papadopoulos N
   3. Ayhan A
   4. Nazeran TM
   5. Noë M
   6. Horlings HM
   7. Lum A
   8. Jones S
   9. Senz J
   10. Seckin T
   11. Ho J
   12. Wu RC
   13. Lac V
   14. Ogawa H
   15. Tessier-Cloutier B
   16. Alhassan R
   17. Wang A
   18. Wang Y
   19. Cohen JD
   20. Wong F
   21. Hasanovic A
   22. Orr N
   23. Zhang M
   24. Popoli M
   25. McMahon W
   26. Wood LD
   27. Mattox A
   28. Allaire C
   29. Segars J
   30. Williams C
   31. Tomasetti C
   32. Boyd N
   33. Kinzler KW
   34. Gilks CB
   35. Diaz L
   36. Wang TL
   37. Vogelstein B
   38. Yong PJ
   39. Huntsman DG
   40. Shih IM

   (2017) Cancer-Associated mutations in endometriosis without Cancer

   New England Journal of Medicine 376:1835–1848.

   https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1614814

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Askenazi M
   2. Parikh JR
   3. Marto JA

   (2009) mzAPI: a new strategy for efficiently sharing mass spectrometry data

   Nature Methods 6:240–241.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth0409-240

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Askenazi M
   2. Marto JA
   3. Linial M

   (2010) The complete peptide dictionary--a meta-proteomics resource

   Proteomics 10:4306–4310.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201000270

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Barbie DA
   2. Tamayo P
   3. Boehm JS
   4. Kim SY
   5. Moody SE
   6. Dunn IF
   7. Schinzel AC
   8. Sandy P
   9. Meylan E
   10. Scholl C
   11. Fröhling S
   12. Chan EM
   13. Sos ML
   14. Michel K
   15. Mermel C
   16. Silver SJ
   17. Weir BA
   18. Reiling JH
   19. Sheng Q
   20. Gupta PB
   21. Wadlow RC
   22. Le H
   23. Hoersch S
   24. Wittner BS
   25. Ramaswamy S
   26. Livingston DM
   27. Sabatini DM
   28. Meyerson M
   29. Thomas RK
   30. Lander ES
   31. Mesirov JP
   32. Root DE
   33. Gilliland DG
   34. Jacks T
   35. Hahn WC

   (2009) Systematic RNA interference reveals that oncogenic KRAS-driven cancers require TBK1

   Nature 462:108–112.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08460

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Barretina J
   2. Caponigro G
   3. Stransky N
   4. Venkatesan K
   5. Margolin AA
   6. Kim S
   7. Wilson CJ
   8. Lehár J
   9. Kryukov GV
   10. Sonkin D
   11. Reddy A
   12. Liu M
   13. Murray L
   14. Berger MF
   15. Monahan JE
   16. Morais P
   17. Meltzer J
   18. Korejwa A
   19. Jané-Valbuena J
   20. Mapa FA
   21. Thibault J
   22. Bric-Furlong E
   23. Raman P
   24. Shipway A
   25. Engels IH
   26. Cheng J
   27. Yu GK
   28. Yu J
   29. Aspesi P
   30. de Silva M
   31. Jagtap K
   32. Jones MD
   33. Wang L
   34. Hatton C
   35. Palescandolo E
   36. Gupta S
   37. Mahan S
   38. Sougnez C
   39. Onofrio RC
   40. Liefeld T
   41. MacConaill L
   42. Winckler W
   43. Reich M
   44. Li N
   45. Mesirov JP
   46. Gabriel SB
   47. Getz G
   48. Ardlie K
   49. Chan V
   50. Myer VE
   51. Weber BL
   52. Porter J
   53. Warmuth M
   54. Finan P
   55. Harris JL
   56. Meyerson M
   57. Golub TR
   58. Morrissey MP
   59. Sellers WR
   60. Schlegel R
   61. Garraway LA

   (2012) The Cancer cell line encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity

   Nature 483:603–607.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11003

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Berrios C
    2. Jung J
    3. Primi B
    4. Wang M
    5. Pedamallu C
    6. Duke F
    7. Marcelus C
    8. Cheng J
    9. Garcea RL
    10. Meyerson M
    11. DeCaprio JA

    (2015) Malawi polyomavirus is a prevalent human virus that interacts with known tumor suppressors

    Journal of Virology 89:857–862.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.02328-14

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Boehm JS
    2. Hession MT
    3. Bulmer SE
    4. Hahn WC

    (2005) Transformation of human and murine fibroblasts without viral oncoproteins

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 25:6464–6474.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.25.15.6464-6474.2005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen W
    2. Possemato R
    3. Campbell KT
    4. Plattner CA
    5. Pallas DC
    6. Hahn WC

    (2004) Identification of specific PP2A complexes involved in human cell transformation

    Cancer Cell 5:127–136.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1535-6108(04)00026-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chen W
    2. Arroyo JD
    3. Timmons JC
    4. Possemato R
    5. Hahn WC

    (2005) Cancer-associated PP2A aalpha subunits induce functional haploinsufficiency and tumorigenicity

    Cancer Research 65:8183–8192.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chen Y
    2. Xu Y
    3. Bao Q
    4. Xing Y
    5. Li Z
    6. Lin Z
    7. Stock JB
    8. Jeffrey PD
    9. Shi Y

    (2007) Structural and biochemical insights into the regulation of protein phosphatase 2A by small t antigen of SV40

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 14:527–534.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb1254

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chen C
    2. Shi Z
    3. Zhang W
    4. Chen M
    5. He F
    6. Zhang Z
    7. Wang Y
    8. Feng M
    9. Wang W
    10. Zhao Y
    11. Brown JH
    12. Jiao S
    13. Zhou Z

    (2014a) Striatins contain a noncanonical coiled coil that binds protein phosphatase 2A A subunit to form a 2:2 heterotetrameric core of striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase (STRIPAK) complex

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 289:9651–9661.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M113.529297

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Chen S
    2. Li X
    3. Lu D
    4. Xu Y
    5. Mou W
    6. Wang L
    7. Chen Y
    8. Liu Y
    9. Li X
    10. Li LY
    11. Liu L
    12. Stupack D
    13. Reisfeld RA
    14. Xiang R
    15. Li N

    (2014b) SOX2 regulates apoptosis through MAP4K4-survivin signaling pathway in human lung Cancer cells

    Carcinogenesis 35:613–623.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgt371

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cheng J
    2. Park DE
    3. Berrios C
    4. White EA
    5. Arora R
    6. Yoon R
    7. Branigan T
    8. Xiao T
    9. Westerling T
    10. Federation A
    11. Zeid R
    12. Strober B
    13. Swanson SK
    14. Florens L
    15. Bradner JE
    16. Brown M
    17. Howley PM
    18. Padi M
    19. Washburn MP
    20. DeCaprio JA

    (2017) Merkel cell polyomavirus recruits MYCL to the EP400 complex to promote oncogenesis

    PLOS Pathogens 13:e1006668.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006668

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Cho US
    2. Morrone S
    3. Sablina AA
    4. Arroyo JD
    5. Hahn WC
    6. Xu W

    (2007) Structural basis of PP2A inhibition by small t antigen

    PLOS Biology 5:e202.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050202

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Collins CS
    2. Hong J
    3. Sapinoso L
    4. Zhou Y
    5. Liu Z
    6. Micklash K
    7. Schultz PG
    8. Hampton GM

    (2006) A small interfering RNA screen for modulators of tumor cell motility identifies MAP4K4 as a promigratory kinase

    PNAS 103:3775–3780.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0600040103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cordenonsi M
    2. Zanconato F
    3. Azzolin L
    4. Forcato M
    5. Rosato A
    6. Frasson C
    7. Inui M
    8. Montagner M
    9. Parenti AR
    10. Poletti A
    11. Daidone MG
    12. Dupont S
    13. Basso G
    14. Bicciato S
    15. Piccolo S

    (2011) The hippo transducer TAZ confers Cancer stem cell-related traits on breast Cancer cells

    Cell 147:759–772.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.048

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Counter CM
    2. Hahn WC
    3. Wei W
    4. Caddle SD
    5. Beijersbergen RL
    6. Lansdorp PM
    7. Sedivy JM
    8. Weinberg RA

    (1998) Dissociation among in vitro telomerase activity, telomere maintenance, and cellular immortalization

    PNAS 95:14723–14728.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.25.14723

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Couzens AL
    2. Knight JD
    3. Kean MJ
    4. Teo G
    5. Weiss A
    6. Dunham WH
    7. Lin ZY
    8. Bagshaw RD
    9. Sicheri F
    10. Pawson T
    11. Wrana JL
    12. Choi H
    13. Gingras AC

    (2013) Protein interaction network of the mammalian hippo pathway reveals mechanisms of kinase-phosphatase interactions

    Science Signaling 6:rs15.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.2004712

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Crawford TD
    2. Ndubaku CO
    3. Chen H
    4. Boggs JW
    5. Bravo BJ
    6. Delatorre K
    7. Giannetti AM
    8. Gould SE
    9. Harris SF
    10. Magnuson SR
    11. McNamara E
    12. Murray LJ
    13. Nonomiya J
    14. Sambrone A
    15. Schmidt S
    16. Smyczek T
    17. Stanley M
    18. Vitorino P
    19. Wang L
    20. West K
    21. Wu P
    22. Ye W

    (2014) Discovery of selective 4-Amino-pyridopyrimidine inhibitors of MAP4K4 using fragment-based lead identification and optimization

    Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 57:3484–3493.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/jm500155b

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Danai LV
    2. Roth Flach RJ
    3. Virbasius JV
    4. Garcia Menendez L
    5. Jung DY
    6. Kim JH
    7. Kim JK
    8. Czech MP

    (2015) Inducible deletion of protein kinase Map4k4 in obese mice improves insulin sensitivity in liver and adipose tissues

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 35:2356–2365.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00150-15

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Doench JG
    2. Fusi N
    3. Sullender M
    4. Hegde M
    5. Vaimberg EW
    6. Donovan KF
    7. Smith I
    8. Tothova Z
    9. Wilen C
    10. Orchard R
    11. Virgin HW
    12. Listgarten J
    13. Root DE

    (2016) Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9

    Nature Biotechnology 34:184–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3437

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Feng X
    2. Arang N
    3. Rigiracciolo DC
    4. Lee JS
    5. Yeerna H
    6. Wang Z
    7. Lubrano S
    8. Kishore A
    9. Pachter JA
    10. König GM
    11. Maggiolini M
    12. Kostenis E
    13. Schlaepfer DD
    14. Tamayo P
    15. Chen Q
    16. Ruppin E
    17. Gutkind JS

    (2019) A platform of synthetic lethal gene interaction networks reveals that the GNAQ uveal melanoma oncogene controls the hippo pathway through FAK

    Cancer Cell 35:457–472.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2019.01.009

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ficarro SB
    2. Adelmant G
    3. Tomar MN
    4. Zhang Y
    5. Cheng VJ
    6. Marto JA

    (2009) Magnetic bead processor for rapid evaluation and optimization of parameters for phosphopeptide enrichment

    Analytical Chemistry 81:4566–4575.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/ac9004452

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Florens L
    2. Washburn MP

    (2006) Proteomic analysis by multidimensional protein identification technology

    Methods in Molecular Biology 328:159–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59745-026-X:159

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Frost A
    2. Elgort MG
    3. Brandman O
    4. Ives C
    5. Collins SR
    6. Miller-Vedam L
    7. Weibezahn J
    8. Hein MY
    9. Poser I
    10. Mann M
    11. Hyman AA
    12. Weissman JS

    (2012) Functional repurposing revealed by comparing S. pombe and S. cerevisiae genetic interactions

    Cell 149:1339–1352.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.028

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Gao X
    2. Gao C
    3. Liu G
    4. Hu J

    (2016) MAP4K4: an emerging therapeutic target in Cancer

    Cell & Bioscience 6:56.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13578-016-0121-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Gordon J
    2. Hwang J
    3. Carrier KJ
    4. Jones CA
    5. Kern QL
    6. Moreno CS
    7. Karas RH
    8. Pallas DC

    (2011) Protein phosphatase 2a (PP2A) binds within the oligomerization domain of striatin and regulates the phosphorylation and activation of the mammalian Ste20-Like kinase Mst3

    BMC Biochemistry 12:54.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2091-12-54

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Goudreault M
    2. D'Ambrosio LM
    3. Kean MJ
    4. Mullin MJ
    5. Larsen BG
    6. Sanchez A
    7. Chaudhry S
    8. Chen GI
    9. Sicheri F
    10. Nesvizhskii AI
    11. Aebersold R
    12. Raught B
    13. Gingras AC

    (2009) A PP2A phosphatase high density interaction network identifies a novel striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase complex linked to the cerebral cavernous malformation 3 (CCM3) protein

    Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 8:157–171.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/mcp.M800266-MCP200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Gould J
    2. Getz G
    3. Monti S
    4. Reich M
    5. Mesirov JP

    (2006) Comparative gene marker selection suite

    Bioinformatics 22:1924–1925.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl196

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Haesen D
    2. Abbasi Asbagh L
    3. Derua R
    4. Hubert A
    5. Schrauwen S
    6. Hoorne Y
    7. Amant F
    8. Waelkens E
    9. Sablina A
    10. Janssens V

    (2016) Recurrent PPP2R1A mutations in uterine Cancer act through a Dominant-Negative mechanism to promote malignant cell growth

    Cancer Research 76:5719–5731.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3342

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Hahn WC
    2. Dessain SK
    3. Brooks MW
    4. King JE
    5. Elenbaas B
    6. Sabatini DM
    7. DeCaprio JA
    8. Weinberg RA

    (2002) Enumeration of the simian virus 40 early region elements necessary for human cell transformation

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 22:2111–2123.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.7.2111-2123.2002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Hertz EPT
    2. Kruse T
    3. Davey NE
    4. López-Méndez B
    5. Sigurðsson JO
    6. Montoya G
    7. Olsen JV
    8. Nilsson J

    (2016) A conserved motif provides binding specificity to the PP2A-B56 phosphatase

    Molecular Cell 63:686–695.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Herzog F
    2. Kahraman A
    3. Boehringer D
    4. Mak R
    5. Bracher A
    6. Walzthoeni T
    7. Leitner A
    8. Beck M
    9. Hartl FU
    10. Ban N
    11. Malmström L
    12. Aebersold R

    (2012) Structural probing of a protein phosphatase 2A network by chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry

    Science 337:1348–1352.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1221483

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Hiemer SE
    2. Zhang L
    3. Kartha VK
    4. Packer TS
    5. Almershed M
    6. Noonan V
    7. Kukuruzinska M
    8. Bais MV
    9. Monti S
    10. Varelas X

    (2015) A YAP/TAZ-Regulated molecular signature is associated with oral squamous cell carcinoma

    Molecular Cancer Research 13:957–968.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-14-0580

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hong X
    2. Nguyen HT
    3. Chen Q
    4. Zhang R
    5. Hagman Z
    6. Voorhoeve PM
    7. Cohen SM

    (2014) Opposing activities of the ras and hippo pathways converge on regulation of YAP protein turnover

    The EMBO Journal 33:2447–2457.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201489385

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Huang H
    2. Tang Q
    3. Chu H
    4. Jiang J
    5. Zhang H
    6. Hao W
    7. Wei X

    (2014) MAP4K4 deletion inhibits proliferation and activation of CD4(+) T cell and promotes T regulatory cell generation in vitro

    Cellular Immunology 289:15–20.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cellimm.2014.02.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Hwang JH
    2. Pores Fernando AT
    3. Faure N
    4. Andrabi S
    5. Adelmant G
    6. Hahn WC
    7. Marto JA
    8. Schaffhausen BS
    9. Roberts TM

    (2014) Polyomavirus small T antigen interacts with yes-associated protein to regulate cell survival and differentiation

    Journal of Virology 88:12055–12064.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01399-14

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Hyodo T
    2. Ito S
    3. Hasegawa H
    4. Asano E
    5. Maeda M
    6. Urano T
    7. Takahashi M
    8. Hamaguchi M
    9. Senga T

    (2012) Misshapen-like kinase 1 (MINK1) is a novel component of striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase (STRIPAK) and is required for the completion of cytokinesis

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 287:25019–25029.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M112.372342

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kamibayashi C
    2. Estes R
    3. Lickteig RL
    4. Yang SI
    5. Craft C
    6. Mumby MC

    (1994)

    Comparison of heterotrimeric protein phosphatase 2A containing different B subunits

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 269:20139–20148.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Kean MJ
    2. Ceccarelli DF
    3. Goudreault M
    4. Sanches M
    5. Tate S
    6. Larsen B
    7. Gibson LC
    8. Derry WB
    9. Scott IC
    10. Pelletier L
    11. Baillie GS
    12. Sicheri F
    13. Gingras AC

    (2011) Structure-function analysis of core STRIPAK proteins: a signaling complex implicated in golgi polarization

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 286:25065–25075.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.214486

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Kim JW
    2. Botvinnik OB
    3. Abudayyeh O
    4. Birger C
    5. Rosenbluh J
    6. Shrestha Y
    7. Abazeed ME
    8. Hammerman PS
    9. DiCara D
    10. Konieczkowski DJ
    11. Johannessen CM
    12. Liberzon A
    13. Alizad-Rahvar AR
    14. Alexe G
    15. Aguirre A
    16. Ghandi M
    17. Greulich H
    18. Vazquez F
    19. Weir BA
    20. Van Allen EM
    21. Tsherniak A
    22. Shao DD
    23. Zack TI
    24. Noble M
    25. Getz G
    26. Beroukhim R
    27. Garraway LA
    28. Ardakani M
    29. Romualdi C
    30. Sales G
    31. Barbie DA
    32. Boehm JS
    33. Hahn WC
    34. Mesirov JP
    35. Tamayo P

    (2016) Characterizing genomic alterations in Cancer by complementary functional associations

    Nature Biotechnology 34:539–546.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3527

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Kuo YC
    2. Huang KY
    3. Yang CH
    4. Yang YS
    5. Lee WY
    6. Chiang CW

    (2008) Regulation of phosphorylation of Thr-308 of akt, cell proliferation, and survival by the B55alpha regulatory subunit targeting of the protein phosphatase 2A holoenzyme to akt

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 283:1882–1892.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M709585200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Lawrence MS
    2. Stojanov P
    3. Mermel CH
    4. Robinson JT
    5. Garraway LA
    6. Golub TR
    7. Meyerson M
    8. Gabriel SB
    9. Lander ES
    10. Getz G

    (2014) Discovery and saturation analysis of Cancer genes across 21 tumour types

    Nature 505:495–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12912

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Martin D
    2. Degese MS
    3. Vitale-Cross L
    4. Iglesias-Bartolome R
    5. Valera JLC
    6. Wang Z
    7. Feng X
    8. Yeerna H
    9. Vadmal V
    10. Moroishi T
    11. Thorne RF
    12. Zaida M
    13. Siegele B
    14. Cheong SC
    15. Molinolo AA
    16. Samuels Y
    17. Tamayo P
    18. Guan KL
    19. Lippman SM
    20. Lyons JG
    21. Gutkind JS

    (2018) Assembly and activation of the hippo signalome by FAT1 tumor suppressor

    Nature Communications 9:2372.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04590-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Meng Z
    2. Moroishi T
    3. Mottier-Pavie V
    4. Plouffe SW
    5. Hansen CG
    6. Hong AW
    7. Park HW
    8. Mo JS
    9. Lu W
    10. Lu S
    11. Flores F
    12. Yu FX
    13. Halder G
    14. Guan KL

    (2015) MAP4K family kinases act in parallel to MST1/2 to activate LATS1/2 in the hippo pathway

    Nature Communications 6:8357.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Meyers RM
    2. Bryan JG
    3. McFarland JM
    4. Weir BA
    5. Sizemore AE
    6. Xu H
    7. Dharia NV
    8. Montgomery PG
    9. Cowley GS
    10. Pantel S
    11. Goodale A
    12. Lee Y
    13. Ali LD
    14. Jiang G
    15. Lubonja R
    16. Harrington WF
    17. Strickland M
    18. Wu T
    19. Hawes DC
    20. Zhivich VA
    21. Wyatt MR
    22. Kalani Z
    23. Chang JJ
    24. Okamoto M
    25. Stegmaier K
    26. Golub TR
    27. Boehm JS
    28. Vazquez F
    29. Root DE
    30. Hahn WC
    31. Tsherniak A

    (2017) Computational correction of copy number effect improves specificity of CRISPR-Cas9 essentiality screens in Cancer cells

    Nature Genetics 49:1779–1784.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3984

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Mohseni M
    2. Sun J
    3. Lau A
    4. Curtis S
    5. Goldsmith J
    6. Fox VL
    7. Wei C
    8. Frazier M
    9. Samson O
    10. Wong KK
    11. Wong KK
    12. Kim C
    13. Camargo FD

    (2014) A genetic screen identifies an LKB1-MARK signalling Axis controlling the Hippo-YAP pathway

    Nature Cell Biology 16:108–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2884

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Moreno CS
    2. Park S
    3. Nelson K
    4. Ashby D
    5. Hubalek F
    6. Lane WS
    7. Pallas DC

    (2000) WD40 repeat proteins striatin and S/G(2) nuclear autoantigen are members of a novel family of calmodulin-binding proteins that associate with protein phosphatase 2A

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:5257–5263.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.275.8.5257

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Nguyen HT
    2. Hong X
    3. Tan S
    4. Chen Q
    5. Chan L
    6. Fivaz M
    7. Cohen SM
    8. Voorhoeve PM

    (2014) Viral small T oncoproteins transform cells by alleviating hippo-pathway-mediated inhibition of the YAP proto-oncogene

    Cell Reports 8:707–713.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.06.062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Pallas DC
    2. Shahrik LK
    3. Martin BL
    4. Jaspers S
    5. Miller TB
    6. Brautigan DL
    7. Roberts TM

    (1990) Polyoma small and middle T antigens and SV40 small t antigen form stable complexes with protein phosphatase 2A

    Cell 60:167–176.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(90)90726-U

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Pan J
    2. Meyers RM
    3. Michel BC
    4. Mashtalir N
    5. Sizemore AE
    6. Wells JN
    7. Cassel SH
    8. Vazquez F
    9. Weir BA
    10. Hahn WC
    11. Marsh JA
    12. Tsherniak A
    13. Kadoch C

    (2018) Interrogation of mammalian protein complex structure, function, and membership using Genome-Scale fitness screens

    Cell Systems 6:555–568.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2018.04.011

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Parikh JR
    2. Askenazi M
    3. Ficarro SB
    4. Cashorali T
    5. Webber JT
    6. Blank NC
    7. Zhang Y
    8. Marto JA

    (2009) Multiplierz: an extensible API based desktop environment for proteomics data analysis

    BMC Bioinformatics 10:364.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-364

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ratcliffe MJ
    2. Itoh K
    3. Sokol SY

    (2000) A positive role for the PP2A catalytic subunit in wnt signal transduction

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 275:35680–35683.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.C000639200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Rouleau C
    2. Pores Fernando AT
    3. Hwang JH
    4. Faure N
    5. Jiang T
    6. White EA
    7. Roberts TM
    8. Schaffhausen BS

    (2016) Transformation by polyomavirus middle T antigen involves a unique bimodal interaction with the hippo effector YAP

    Journal of Virology 90:7032–7045.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00417-16

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Rozenblatt-Rosen O
    2. Deo RC
    3. Padi M
    4. Adelmant G
    5. Calderwood MA
    6. Rolland T
    7. Grace M
    8. Dricot A
    9. Askenazi M
    10. Tavares M
    11. Pevzner SJ
    12. Abderazzaq F
    13. Byrdsong D
    14. Carvunis AR
    15. Chen AA
    16. Cheng J
    17. Correll M
    18. Duarte M
    19. Fan C
    20. Feltkamp MC
    21. Ficarro SB
    22. Franchi R
    23. Garg BK
    24. Gulbahce N
    25. Hao T
    26. Holthaus AM
    27. James R
    28. Korkhin A
    29. Litovchick L
    30. Mar JC
    31. Pak TR
    32. Rabello S
    33. Rubio R
    34. Shen Y
    35. Singh S
    36. Spangle JM
    37. Tasan M
    38. Wanamaker S
    39. Webber JT
    40. Roecklein-Canfield J
    41. Johannsen E
    42. Barabási AL
    43. Beroukhim R
    44. Kieff E
    45. Cusick ME
    46. Hill DE
    47. Münger K
    48. Marto JA
    49. Quackenbush J
    50. Roth FP
    51. DeCaprio JA
    52. Vidal M

    (2012) Interpreting Cancer genomes using systematic host network perturbations by tumour virus proteins

    Nature 487:491–495.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11288

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Sablina AA
    2. Hector M
    3. Colpaert N
    4. Hahn WC

    (2010) Identification of PP2A complexes and pathways involved in cell transformation

    Cancer Research 70:10474–10484.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-2855

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Sablina AA
    2. Hahn WC

    (2007) The role of PP2A A subunits in tumor suppression

    Cell Adhesion & Migration 1:140–141.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/cam.1.3.4986

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Sablina AA
    2. Hahn WC

    (2008) SV40 small T antigen and PP2A phosphatase in cell transformation

    Cancer and Metastasis Reviews 27:137–146.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10555-008-9116-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Sanjana NE
    2. Shalem O
    3. Zhang F

    (2014) Improved vectors and genome-wide libraries for CRISPR screening

    Nature Methods 11:783–784.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3047

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Sena-Esteves M
    2. Tebbets JC
    3. Steffens S
    4. Crombleholme T
    5. Flake AW

    (2004) Optimized large-scale production of high titer Lentivirus vector pseudotypes

    Journal of Virological Methods 122:131–139.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2004.08.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Sents W
    2. Ivanova E
    3. Lambrecht C
    4. Haesen D
    5. Janssens V

    (2013) The biogenesis of active protein phosphatase 2A holoenzymes: a tightly regulated process creating phosphatase specificity

    FEBS Journal 280:644–661.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-4658.2012.08579.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Shao DD
    2. Xue W
    3. Krall EB
    4. Bhutkar A
    5. Piccioni F
    6. Wang X
    7. Schinzel AC
    8. Sood S
    9. Rosenbluh J
    10. Kim JW
    11. Zwang Y
    12. Roberts TM
    13. Root DE
    14. Jacks T
    15. Hahn WC

    (2014) KRAS and YAP1 converge to regulate EMT and tumor survival

    Cell 158:171–184.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Shi Y

    (2009) Serine/threonine phosphatases: mechanism through structure

    Cell 139:468–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.10.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Sowa ME
    2. Bennett EJ
    3. Gygi SP
    4. Harper JW

    (2009) Defining the human deubiquitinating enzyme interaction landscape

    Cell 138:389–403.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.04.042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Stewart SA
    2. Dykxhoorn DM
    3. Palliser D
    4. Mizuno H
    5. Yu EY
    6. An DS
    7. Sabatini DM
    8. Chen IS
    9. Hahn WC
    10. Sharp PA
    11. Weinberg RA
    12. Novina CD

    (2003) Lentivirus-delivered stable gene silencing by RNAi in primary cells

    RNA 9:493–501.

    https://doi.org/10.1261/rna.2192803

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Tang X
    2. Guilherme A
    3. Chakladar A
    4. Powelka AM
    5. Konda S
    6. Virbasius JV
    7. Nicoloro SM
    8. Straubhaar J
    9. Czech MP

    (2006) An RNA interference-based screen identifies MAP4K4/NIK as a negative regulator of PPARgamma, Adipogenesis, and insulin-responsive hexose transport

    PNAS 103:2087–2092.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507660103

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Tsherniak A
    2. Vazquez F
    3. Montgomery PG
    4. Weir BA
    5. Kryukov G
    6. Cowley GS
    7. Gill S
    8. Harrington WF
    9. Pantel S
    10. Krill-Burger JM
    11. Meyers RM
    12. Ali L
    13. Goodale A
    14. Lee Y
    15. Jiang G
    16. Hsiao J
    17. Gerath WFJ
    18. Howell S
    19. Merkel E
    20. Ghandi M
    21. Garraway LA
    22. Root DE
    23. Golub TR
    24. Boehm JS
    25. Hahn WC

    (2017) Defining a Cancer dependency map

    Cell 170:564–576.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.06.010

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Vitorino P
    2. Yeung S
    3. Crow A
    4. Bakke J
    5. Smyczek T
    6. West K
    7. McNamara E
    8. Eastham-Anderson J
    9. Gould S
    10. Harris SF
    11. Ndubaku C
    12. Ye W

    (2015) MAP4K4 regulates integrin-FERM binding to control endothelial cell motility

    Nature 519:425–430.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14323

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Wang M
    2. Amano SU
    3. Flach RJ
    4. Chawla A
    5. Aouadi M
    6. Czech MP

    (2013) Identification of Map4k4 as a novel suppressor of skeletal muscle differentiation

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 33:678–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00618-12

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Westbrook TF
    2. Martin ES
    3. Schlabach MR
    4. Leng Y
    5. Liang AC
    6. Feng B
    7. Zhao JJ
    8. Roberts TM
    9. Mandel G
    10. Hannon GJ
    11. Depinho RA
    12. Chin L
    13. Elledge SJ

    (2005) A genetic screen for candidate tumor suppressors identifies REST

    Cell 121:837–848.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.03.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Wilson FH
    2. Johannessen CM
    3. Piccioni F
    4. Tamayo P
    5. Kim JW
    6. Van Allen EM
    7. Corsello SM
    8. Capelletti M
    9. Calles A
    10. Butaney M
    11. Sharifnia T
    12. Gabriel SB
    13. Mesirov JP
    14. Hahn WC
    15. Engelman JA
    16. Meyerson M
    17. Root DE
    18. Jänne PA
    19. Garraway LA

    (2015) A functional landscape of resistance to ALK inhibition in lung Cancer

    Cancer Cell 27:397–408.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.02.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Wright JH
    2. Wang X
    3. Manning G
    4. LaMere BJ
    5. Le P
    6. Zhu S
    7. Khatry D
    8. Flanagan PM
    9. Buckley SD
    10. Whyte DB
    11. Howlett AR
    12. Bischoff JR
    13. Lipson KE
    14. Jallal B

    (2003) The STE20 kinase HGK is broadly expressed in human tumor cells and can modulate cellular transformation, invasion, and adhesion

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 23:2068–2082.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.23.6.2068-2082.2003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Yang SI
    2. Lickteig RL
    3. Estes R
    4. Rundell K
    5. Walter G
    6. Mumby MC

    (1991) Control of protein phosphatase 2A by simian virus 40 small-t antigen

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 11:1988–1995.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.11.4.1988

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Yang N
    2. Wang Y
    3. Hui L
    4. Li X
    5. Jiang X

    (2015) Silencing SOX2 expression by RNA interference inhibits proliferation, invasion and metastasis, and induces apoptosis through MAP4K4/JNK signaling pathway in human laryngeal Cancer TU212 cells

    Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 63:721–733.

    https://doi.org/10.1369/0022155415590829

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Yao Z
    2. Zhou G
    3. Wang XS
    4. Brown A
    5. Diener K
    6. Gan H
    7. Tan TH

    (1999) A novel human STE20-related protein kinase, HGK, that specifically activates the c-Jun N-terminal kinase signaling pathway

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 274:2118–2125.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.274.4.2118

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Yu FX
    2. Zhao B
    3. Panupinthu N
    4. Jewell JL
    5. Lian I
    6. Wang LH
    7. Zhao J
    8. Yuan H
    9. Tumaneng K
    10. Li H
    11. Fu XD
    12. Mills GB
    13. Guan KL

    (2012) Regulation of the Hippo-YAP pathway by G-Protein-Coupled receptor signaling

    Cell 150:780–791.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Yue J
    2. Xie M
    3. Gou X
    4. Lee P
    5. Schneider MD
    6. Wu X

    (2014) Microtubules regulate focal adhesion dynamics through MAP4K4

    Developmental Cell 31:572–585.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.10.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Zhao B
    2. Wei X
    3. Li W
    4. Udan RS
    5. Yang Q
    6. Kim J
    7. Xie J
    8. Ikenoue T
    9. Yu J
    10. Li L
    11. Zheng P
    12. Ye K
    13. Chinnaiyan A
    14. Halder G
    15. Lai ZC
    16. Guan KL

    (2007) Inactivation of YAP oncoprotein by the hippo pathway is involved in cell contact inhibition and tissue growth control

    Genes & Development 21:2747–2761.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1602907

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Zhao B
    2. Ye X
    3. Yu J
    4. Li L
    5. Li W
    6. Li S
    7. Yu J
    8. Lin JD
    9. Wang C-Y
    10. Chinnaiyan AM
    11. Lai Z-C
    12. Guan K-L

    (2008) TEAD mediates YAP-dependent gene induction and growth control

    Genes & Development 22:1962–1971.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1664408

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Zheng Y
    2. Wang W
    3. Liu B
    4. Deng H
    5. Uster E
    6. Pan D

    (2015) Identification of happyhour/MAP4K as alternative hpo/Mst-like kinases in the hippo kinase cascade

    Developmental Cell 34:642–655.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2015.08.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Acceptance summary:

The protein phosphatase PP2A is implicated in cancer. This is illustrated by the pro-tumorigenic effects of SV40 Small T antigen (ST) that displaces regulatory B subunits and alters the abundance and types of PP2A complexes in cells. The authors show that ST not only displaces common PP2A B subunits but also promotes A-C subunit interactions with alternative B subunits (B', striatins) that are components of the Striatin-interacting phosphatase and kinase (STRIPAK) complex. STRN4, a member of STRIPAK, associates with ST and is required for ST-PP2A-induced cell transformation. ST recruitment of STRIPAK facilitates PP2A-mediated dephosphorylation of MAP4K4 and induces cell transformation through the activation of the Hippo pathway effector YAP1. These observations identify an unanticipated role of MAP4K4 in transformation and show that the STRIPAK complex regulates PP2A specificity and activity.

Decision letter after peer review:

[Editors’ note: the authors submitted for reconsideration following the decision after peer review. What follows is the decision letter after the first round of review.]

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "STRIPAK directs PP2A activity to promote oncogenic transformation" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by a Senior Editor. The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Veerle Janssens (Reviewer #2).

Our decision has been reached after consultation between the reviewers. Based on these discussions and the individual reviews below, we regret to inform you that your present manuscript will not be considered further for publication in eLife.

The authors have examined the mechanism of cell transformation mediated by small T (ST). The major finding reported is that ST engages the PP2A-STRIPAK complex to regulate the MAP4K4 pathway. This is an interesting conclusion that advances the field. However, the data presented do not fully establish the PP2A-STRIPAK-ST complex and fail to document that PP2A in this complex dephosphorylates MAP4K4. A number of technical issues were also noted. Moreover, insufficient information was presented concerning the detailed description of the reported studies. The reviewers considered that the required revisions to the manuscript would take more than 2 months. Consequently, we are returning the manuscript to you. However, we remain interested in the mechanism of ST function within the STRIPAK complex and would be willing to consider a new manuscript that fully addresses the points raised during review.

Reviewer #1:

This is an interesting study of cellular transformation caused by the viral oncoprotein small T (ST). Previous studies have established a role for PP2A, an enzyme that binds ST. Furthermore, the authors have previously reported that ST interacts with the STRIPAK complex plus MAP4K4. Moreover, it is established that MAP4K4 acts an inhibitor of the hippo pathway and it is known that hippo signaling is required for ST-mediated cellular transformation. Together, these previous analyses provide an outline for a potential ST-mediated oncogenic pathway involving PP2A, STRIPAK, MAP4K4, and hippo pathway signaling. The purpose of the current study was to obtain molecular insight into the functioning of this pathway.

Specific Comments

1) The study is very poorly presented. For example, the first three lines of the Results section refer to Table S1 and Figure 1—figure supplement 1A with little experimental description. This minimalist approach to description is widespread throughout the figure legends. For example, the shRNA nomenclature (e.g name and color Figure 1—figure supplement 1B) is not explained and the choice of panels is unclear – why is MARCKs presented, but not PP2A, B56, Aα? The STRN3, MAP2K3 and STK24 shRNAs are not described (Figure S4). Of the 8 MAP4K4 shRNAs (Figure 1D), described, only six are described in the Materials and methods. The STRN4 shRNA in Figure 4D is not described.

2) Some of the conclusions presented are not supported by the presented Figure panels. For example, the "significantly inhibited as measured by in vitro kinase assays" in paragraph two of the Results is not supported by statistical analysis in corresponding Figure 1—figure supplement 1C. Similarly, the conclusion that the exon 22 encoded phosphorylation sites are regulatory based on the exon 22 deletion is not rigorous (subsection “Consequences of STRIPAK-MAP4K4 interactions on MAP4K4 phosphorylation and activity”).

3) The variability of the shRNA data is confusing. What are we to make of the STRN3 shRNAs in Figure S4? In the case of MAP4k4, the variability is proposed to be mediated by the extent of MAP4K4 knockdown – this conclusion is based on the correlation between a 50% knockout down phenotype and the lack of phenotype caused by more extensive knockdown. Can this conclusion be corroborated by an experimental test – for example, CRISPR-mediated clines with heterozygous vs homozygous gene deletions?

4) One conclusion of the study is that while ST is thought to inhibit PP2A, here the authors indicate that ST bound PP2A in the STRIPAK complex is active and that it dephosphorylates MAP4K4. This is an interesting conclusion that advances the field. However, data are needed to confirm this conclusion. Can PP2A activity be detected in the ST/STRIPAK complex?

5) The organization of the ST/STRIPAK complex is unclear from the data presented. Is the ST association with STRIPAK mediated by the interaction of ST with PP2A? Are there ST interactions with other STRIPAK components?

6) The sole reliance on agar assays for measurements of oncogenesis needs to be justified.

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting study describing a novel mechanism by which small t achieves cell transformation through an effect on the B"'/striatin-PP2A complexes, which on their turn suppress MAP4K4 activity, presumably by direct dephosphorylation. Suppressed MAP4K4 activity then further contributes to suppressed Hippo signaling, resulting in activation of the YAP1 oncogene, and increased transcription of YAP1 target genes.

The authors show that cell transformation by ST is (in part) dependent on STRN4 (or STRN3), and that ST increases STRN4 interaction with PP2A-C, and STRN4 interaction with MAP4K4. Although all striatins (STRN, STRN3 and STRN4) are identified as part of the ST interactome (Table S1), it is not clear from the current experiments though whether a ST-STRN4-PP2A A-C complex is indeed formed (e.g. PP2AC is missing in Table S1; and ST IB is missing in STRN4 IP in Figure 2C), and more importantly, whether such a complex is catalytically active. This is critical, not only to sustain their model (Figure 6H), but also because the prevailing idea, supported by crystallographic studies, is that ST, through binding to the A subunit of PP2A, inhibits activity of the PP2A C subunit. Thus, authors should directly address this, and isolate STRN4 from cells with or without ST expression, and subsequently measure and compare STRN4-associated PP2A activity in these two conditions. They should also check for the presence of ST in these STRN4 IPs. The activity assay could be executed on a synthetic phospho-peptide deriving from one of the MAP4K4 phosphosites that are presumably being dephosphorylated by STRN4-PP2A, or on a more general phosphopeptide. This is for me a key experiment that is missing: only if clear PP2A activities can be measured in STRN4 IPs from cells expressing ST, and ST can be shown to be present in these STRN4 IPs, the major conclusions of the paper and the proposed model (Figure 6H) are supported. If not, the effect of ST may indeed rather be explained by promoting the formation of Striatin-PP2A complexes at the expense of other PP2A trimers, thus, by shifting the stoichiometric balance between the different PP2A holoenzymes (a possibility also suggested by the authors themselves in the Discussion).

This being said, the authors further show via a co-depletion experiment that the role of STRN4 in promoting ST-mediated transformation requires MAP4K4, and more specifically, is dependent on suppression of MAP4K kinase activity. MAP4K4 isolated from ST-expressing cells was indeed found to be less active than in cells without ST expression, and this correlated with MAP4K4 dephosphorylation at several Ser sites. MAP4K4 dephosphorylation of these same sites was also seen in cells with knockdown of PP2A A subunit, suggesting that PP2A is directly (or indirectly) involved. In concordance, (partial) suppression of MAP4K expression by itself, is as strongly promoting cell transformation as expression of ST, and this effect is again attributable to a (partial) suppression of MAP4K4 kinase activity, further confirming that MAP4K is important to prevent cell transformation, and thus, in principle is an additional, appealing cellular target for ST.

While suppression of MAP4K4 does not affect the interactions of STRIPAK components (including STRN4) with PP2A (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A), the authors argue that suppression of STRN4 affects the interaction of MAP4K4 with PP2A in ST expressing cells (Figure 5C). In my opinion, this is not very well sustained by the data, as an IP of MAP4K4 in conditions with or without shSTRN4 is clearly lacking in this figure, and should be added. In any case, this figure also needs quantification of the bands (and calculation of ratios) to sustain any conclusions.

Overall, the manuscript lacks at least two key experiments to fully support the model and some of the conclusions drawn (i.e. PP2A-STRN4 activity assay in cells with and without ST; and PP2A C interaction assay in MAP4K4 IP in cells with and without shSTRN4).

Reviewer #3:

The submitted paper 'STRIPAK directs PP2A activity to promote oncogenic transformation', by Kim et al., demonstrate that SV40 small t antigen (ST) induce MAP4K4 binding to STRN4 in the STRIPAK complex. The authors suggest that this interaction lowers MAP4K4 activity and that this drives anchorage-independent (AI) cell growth due to increased YAP-signaling in these HEK293 cells. The connection between MAP4K4 and Hippo/YAP signaling is not novel. The connection between MAP4K4 and STRIPAK is not novel either. But, the finding that SV can induce transformation through the STRIPAK/MAP4K4 and through changes in the PP2A complex interactome is novel.

The main conclusion is based on the fact that ST induce a 2-3 fold binding of MAP4K to the STRIPAK complex and that this decrease MAP4K4 phosphorylation and activity. This is a novel finding, but in reality, how much of MAP4K is actually bound to the STRIPAK complex vs. non-STRIPAK complex? It would have been nice to validate these data in some other cell lines. The data in HEK293 cells stand a bit alone and never becomes really powerful. The authors also do not demonstrate if the PP2A per se is responsible for the lower MPA4K4 phosphorylation.

The paper is interesting but the data has a high degree of inconsistency, in particular when correlating the AI growth with the protein knockdown efficiencies using different ablation techniques. In many experiment there is no consistency between protein levels using different shRNA, gRNAs and the AI growth (Figure 1B, 4B and E). They explain these discrepancies by arguing that intermediate levels of MAP4K4 are need to induce transformation – not a complete suppression!! This makes the data hard to interpret and hard to accept. The explanation is plausible and is supported by the MAP4K4 inhibitor experiment. However, more emphasis should be made on this intermediated level of MAP4K4 levels to convince the reader. I.e. it would be nice to see if higher conc. of Compound 29 (3-5 μM) completely inhibit AI growth. Again more cell lines should be validated.

Could the data be explained by redundancy from MAP4K6 (MINK1) and MAP4K7 (TNIK) which both show redundancy with MAP4K4 in activity and binding to the STRIPAK complex as demonstrated in the papers:

-Misshapen-like kinase 1 (MINK1) Is a Novel Component of Striatin-interacting Phosphatase and Kinase (STRIPAK) and Is Required for the Completion of Cytokinesis and The Ste20 Family Kinases MAP4K4, MINK1

-TNIK Converge to Regulate Stress-Induced JNK Signaling in Neurons

The text is poorly written and the figure legends are not helping the reader. For instance, when comparing shLuc in Figure 1, the AI is around 20, when looking at shLuc in Figure 3 the AI is around 100-150. In this case, the authors should state in the figures and legends if the cells used in the experiment were transformed or not prior to performing the experiment.

Most confusing is when the authors keep talking about a MAP4K4 signature, which in reality is a 'loss-of-MAP4K4' signature in the entire Figure 6. The authors need to run through their text and fix all these issues. I.e they write 'indicating that YAP1 is necessary for MAP4K4 mediated transformation. This statement is false; it should be opposite: indicating that YAP1 is necessary for loss-of-MAP4K4 mediated transformation.

The reader is kept with certain doubt all the time, when reading the paper and one never really gets convinced by the end. This is a pity! A massive editing (text, figure and legends) is needed to give this a nice flow. Additional validation of shRNA constructs and additional cell lines should be a requisite before acceptance.

[Editors’ note: further revisions were suggested prior to acceptance, as described below.]

Thank you for submitting your article "STRIPAK directs PP2A activity toward MAP4K4 to promote oncogenic transformation" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by two peer reviewers, one of whom is a member of our Board of Reviewing Editors, and the evaluation has been overseen by Anna Akhmanova as the Senior Editor. The reviewers have opted to remain anonymous.

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

Summary:

The authors have significantly improved the presentation of this study of PP2A regulation of MAP4K4 mediated by STRIPAK. Moreover, the manuscript presents additional experiments to support the conclusions presented, including a phosphoproteomics experiment in which decreased phosphorylation of MAP4K4 was observed in cells with partial PP2A suppression (via C or B56gamma-directed shRNA) and in cells expressing ST, and additional in vivo xenograft assays to further sustain the conclusions from the in vitro colony growth assays.

While the manuscript has been improved, some questions raised during the initial review have not been fully addressed and some questions have been raised by the new data that have now included.

Essential revisions:

1) Figure 1 and Figure 1—figure supplement 1: The new phosphoproteomics experiment introducing the manuscript is confusing in the way it is presented. Different results are obtained for shRNA to the same target. Is this due to differences in the extent of knockdown? A western blot to document expression levels would be helpful. Would it be simpler to present data from those shRNA that do cause transformation compared to the shLuc control? Data from the GFP control (panel 1A) are not presented. The heat map scale (panel 1B) should provide a numbers.

2) A key conclusion of the previous version of this manuscript was MAP4K4-directed PP2A-STRN activity in the presence of ST. A direct experimental validation of this conclusion was requested. The revised manuscript includes this experiment, but as stated by the authors, the presence of ST in the PP2A complex could not be confirmed because of reagent issues (ST co-migrates with small IgG band). It is unclear how the data presented were normalized – to STRN4 inputs, or to co-IP-ed PP2A-C levels in the STRN4 IPs? The authors seem to have used equal amounts of total lysate in both conditions to IP STRN4 from, but this does not suffice to show that equal STRN4 levels were IP-ed, let alone that equal PP2A-C levels were present in both IPs. Could the ST levels in these IPs be determined by an MS-based approach? Could recombinant ST be added to STRN4 IPs and the effect on PP2A activity measured?

3) In Figure 6B, more PP2A-C is co-IPed with STRN4 in ST overexpressing cells, while in Figure 3—figure supplement 1B this does not seem to be the case (in Figure 3C it is more difficult to judge). If more PP2A-C is co-IPed with STRN4 in ST versus GFP overexpressing cells, this would provide evidence for a relative redistribution of PP2A-C subunits into STRN4 complexes versus other PP2A B subunit-type complexes upon ST expression, and provide an explanation for the observed increase in activity. If, however, this would not be the case, and the presence of ST can be demonstrated in the complex, this would suggest that ST might act as 'an activator' of STRN4-PP2A-mediated dephosphorylation of certain MAP4K4 sites. These questions lead to a lack of clarity concerning the mechanism-of-action of how ST stimulates STRN4-PP2A activity towards MAP4K4.

4) Figure 6—figure supplement 1C: indications of statistical significance are missing

[Editors’ note: the authors resubmitted a revised version of the paper for consideration. What follows is the authors’ response to the first round of review.]

Reviewer #1:

This is an interesting study of cellular transformation caused by the viral oncoprotein small T (ST). Previous studies have established a role for PP2A, an enzyme that binds ST. Furthermore, the authors have previously reported that ST interacts with the STRIPAK complex plus MAP4K4. Moreover, it is established that MAP4K4 acts an inhibitor of the hippo pathway and it is known that hippo signaling is required for ST-mediated cellular transformation. Together, these previous analyses provide an outline for a potential ST-mediated oncogenic pathway involving PP2A, STRIPAK, MAP4K4, and hippo pathway signaling. The purpose of the current study was to obtain molecular insight into the functioning of this pathway.

Specific Comments

1) The study is very poorly presented. For example, the first three lines of the Results section refer to Table S1 and Figure 1—figure supplement 1A with little experimental description. This minimalist approach to description is widespread throughout the figure legends. For example, the shRNA nomenclature (e.g name and color Figure 1—figure supplement 1B) is not explained and the choice of panels is unclear – why is MARCKs presented, but not PP2A, B56, Aα? The STRN3, MAP2K3 and STK24 shRNAs are not described (Figure S4). Of the 8 MAP4K4 shRNAs (Figure 1D), described, only six are described in the Materials and methods. The STRN4 shRNA in Figure 4D is not described.

We agree with the reviewer that the original manuscript did not fully explain the figures and that the presentation of the manuscript could have been clearer. In this revised version, we have substantially revised the manuscript, figures and legends to address these concerns. First, we have completely reorganized the manuscript and now present the phosphoproteomics analysis that led to the finding that MAP4K4 phosphorylation changes when SV40 ST is present. Second, we added substantially more detail to the description of the results throughout the manuscript and have rewritten the figure legends. Third, we also added additional descriptions regarding the choice of specific shRNAs, their designations, and additional details in the Materials and methods section of the manuscript. We have also carefully edited the manuscript to add information that was omitted in the original manuscript. We thank the reviewers for their forbearance and agree that changes have substantially improved the manuscript.

2) Some of the conclusions presented are not supported by the presented Figure panels. For example, the "significantly inhibited as measured by in vitro kinase assays" in paragraph two of the Results is not supported by statistical analysis in corresponding Figure 1—figure supplement 1C. Similarly, the conclusion that the exon 22 encoded phosphorylation sites are regulatory based on the exon 22 deletion is not rigorous (subsection “Consequences of STRIPAK-MAP4K4 interactions on MAP4K4 phosphorylation and activity”).

We agree with the reviewer. We have confirmed that when significant is used, that the corresponding experiments are accompanied by statistical analyses. We have removed the section on exon 22 entirely, as it does not contribute towards the overall conclusion of the manuscript.

3) The variability of the shRNA data is confusing. What are we to make of the STRN3 shRNAs in Figure S4? In the case of MAP4k4, the variability is proposed to be mediated by the extent of MAP4K4 knockdown – this conclusion is based on the correlation between a 50% knockout down phenotype and the lack of phenotype caused by more extensive knockdown. Can this conclusion be corroborated by an experimental test – for example, CRISPR-mediated clines with heterozygous vs homozygous gene deletions?

The reviewer is correct that different RNAi reagents induce variable levels of mRNA suppression. For MAP4K4, we tested 8 distinct shRNAs targeting different sequences and found that the three shRNAs that induced anchorage independent growth induced partial knockdown of MAP4K4 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B). To provide stronger evidence to support these experiments, we have added mRNA expression data that confirms that MAP4K4 mRNA is reduced by 50% upon expressing the MAP4K4 shRNA (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C). In addition, we have now performed xenograft experiments in which HEK TER cells harboring partial MAP4K4 suppression induce tumors in immunodeficient mice when xenografted (Figure 2D-E).

The reviewer suggested an experiment involving CRISPR-Cas9 to create heterozygous vs. homozygous knockout cells. This experiment will require single cell cloning and the testing of hundreds of clones that harbor the correct genotype to ensure that any observation is not the result of selection of rare clones.

In this case, we simply wish to make the argument that partial suppression of MAP4K4 leads to cell transformation. We include the new data described above and have clarified the text to make this point clearer.

In addition, since the STRN3 shRNA data does not contribute to the study in a meaningful way, we removed the STRN3 result originally in Figure S4 to make the manuscript more focused.

4) One conclusion of the study is that while ST is thought to inhibit PP2A, here the authors indicate that ST bound PP2A in the STRIPAK complex is active and that it dephosphorylates MAP4K4. This is an interesting conclusion that advances the field. However, data are needed to confirm this conclusion. Can PP2A activity be detected in the ST/STRIPAK complex?

We have performed additional experiments to address this important point. We isolated STRN4 immune complexes and tested PP2A phosphatase activity using MAP4K4 phosphopeptides identified in the phosphoproteomic experiments. Specifically, we found that PP2A activity was >2 fold elevated in ST expressing cells compared to the control (Figure 3E). Since treatment with okadaic acid abolishes this activity whether or not ST is expressed, this activity is attributable to PP2A. We thank the reviewer for suggesting this experiment.

5) The organization of the ST/STRIPAK complex is unclear from the data presented. Is the ST association with STRIPAK mediated by the interaction of ST with PP2A? Are there ST interactions with other STRIPAK components?

To further demonstrate that ST interaction with STRIPAK is mediated by PP2A, we have performed additional experiments in which we expressed and tested ST mutants that are unable to bind to PP2A Aα. We found that these ST mutants are also unable to bind to STRN3, a core component of the STRIPAK (new Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). We previously showed that ST interacts with STRN3 and other STRIPAK components including (STRN4, CTTNBP2NL, FAM40A, MAP2K3, STK24) (Rozenblatt-Rosen et al., 2012).

6) The sole reliance on agar assays for measurements of oncogenesis needs to be justified.

We agree with the reviewer that additional transformation assays would enhance the manuscript. We have now incorporated in vivo tumor xenograft experiments to further support our conclusions. We demonstrate in Figure 2D-E that partial knockdown of MAP4K4 in HEK TER cells induces tumor growth in immunodeficient mice and furthermore, as shown in Figure 5E-F, suppression of STRN4 in HEK TER ST cells substantially reduces tumor growth.

Reviewer #2:

This is an interesting study describing a novel mechanism by which small t achieves cell transformation through an effect on the B"'/striatin-PP2A complexes, which on their turn suppress MAP4K4 activity, presumably by direct dephosphorylation. Suppressed MAP4K4 activity then further contributes to suppressed Hippo signaling, resulting in activation of the YAP1 oncogene, and increased transcription of YAP1 target genes.

The authors show that cell transformation by ST is (in part) dependent on STRN4 (or STRN3), and that ST increases STRN4 interaction with PP2A-C, and STRN4 interaction with MAP4K4. Although all striatins (STRN, STRN3 and STRN4) are identified as part of the ST interactome (Table S1), it is not clear from the current experiments though whether a ST-STRN4-PP2A A-C complex is indeed formed (e.g. PP2AC is missing in Table S1; and ST IB is missing in STRN4 IP in Figure 2C), and more importantly, whether such a complex is catalytically active. This is critical, not only to sustain their model (Figure 6H), but also because the prevailing idea, supported by crystallographic studies, is that ST, through binding to the A subunit of PP2A, inhibits activity of the PP2A C subunit. Thus, authors should directly address this, and isolate STRN4 from cells with or without ST expression, and subsequently measure and compare STRN4-associated PP2A activity in these two conditions. They should also check for the presence of ST in these STRN4 IPs. The activity assay could be executed on a synthetic phospho-peptide deriving from one of the MAP4K4 phosphosites that are presumably being dephosphorylated by STRN4-PP2A, or on a more general phosphopeptide. This is for me a key experiment that is missing: only if clear PP2A activities can be measured in STRN4 IPs from cells expressing ST, and ST can be shown to be present in these STRN4 IPs, the major conclusions of the paper and the proposed model (Figure 6H) are supported. If not, the effect of ST may indeed rather be explained by promoting the formation of Striatin-PP2A complexes at the expense of other PP2A trimers, thus, by shifting the stoichiometric balance between the different PP2A holoenzymes (a possibility also suggested by the authors themselves in the Discussion).

We have now performed new experiments as suggested by the reviewer. Consistent with the overarching model, we have added an experiment which shows that in ST-expressing cells, STRN4 immune complexes contain >2 fold higher activity for 2 specific MAP4K4 phosphopeptides that were identified in our phosphoproteomic analysis (Figure 3D-E) and that this activity is abolished in the presence of okadaic acid, a potent inhibitor of PP2A. Although we detected an increase in PP2A phosphatase activity in vitro using STRN4 immune complexes derived from ST expressing cells relative to GFP control, we were unable to detect ST in these complexes due to technical reasons. Specifically, the ST specific antibody cannot be used in a co-immunoprecipitation experiment because SV40 ST (21kDa) overlaps with light chain of IgG (25kDa).

As mentioned above, we found an increase in PP2A activity for specific MAP4K4 phosphosites when ST is expressed. This observation is consistent with our results showing an increased association between striatins and PP2A (Figure 6B) and between STRIPAK and MAP4K4 (Figure 3B-C, Figure 6B). However, we cannot exclude the possibility that ST displaces canonical B subunits and is consequently shifting the balance towards striatin-containing PP2A holoenzymes. We describe these points in the Discussion section of the manuscript.

This being said, the authors further show via a co-depletion experiment that the role of STRN4 in promoting ST-mediated transformation requires MAP4K4, and more specifically, is dependent on suppression of MAP4K kinase activity. MAP4K4 isolated from ST-expressing cells was indeed found to be less active than in cells without ST expression, and this correlated with MAP4K4 dephosphorylation at several Ser sites. MAP4K4 dephosphorylation of these same sites was also seen in cells with knockdown of PP2A A subunit, suggesting that PP2A is directly (or indirectly) involved. In concordance, (partial) suppression of MAP4K expression by itself, is as strongly promoting cell transformation as expression of ST, and this effect is again attributable to a (partial) suppression of MAP4K4 kinase activity, further confirming that MAP4K is important to prevent cell transformation, and thus, in principle is an additional, appealing cellular target for ST.

While suppression of MAP4K4 does not affect the interactions of STRIPAK components (including STRN4) with PP2A (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A), the authors argue that suppression of STRN4 affects the interaction of MAP4K4 with PP2A in ST expressing cells (Figure 5C). In my opinion, this is not very well sustained by the data, as an IP of MAP4K4 in conditions with or without shSTRN4 is clearly lacking in this figure, and should be added. In any case, this figure also needs quantification of the bands (and calculation of ratios) to sustain any conclusions.

In the revised manuscript, we have added Figure 6—figure supplement 1A, where we demonstrate that knockdown of STRN4 also reduces interaction of MAP4K4 with PP2A Cα in ST-expressing cells. As the reviewer suggested, we quantified the blots and added the ratio calculations into Figure 6—figure supplement 1A.

Overall, the manuscript lacks at least two key experiments to fully support the model and some of the conclusions drawn (i.e. PP2A-STRN4 activity assay in cells with and without ST; and PP2A C interaction assay in MAP4K4 IP in cells with and without shSTRN4).

As described above, we have now performed both of these experiments (Figure 3E and Figure 6—figure supplement 1A).

Reviewer #3:

The submitted paper 'STRIPAK directs PP2A activity to promote oncogenic transformation', by Kim et al., demonstrate that SV40 small t antigen (ST) induce MAP4K4 binding to STRN4 in the STRIPAK complex. The authors suggest that this interaction lowers MAP4K4 activity and that this drives anchorage-independent (AI) cell growth due to increased YAP-signaling in these HEK293 cells. The connection between MAP4K4 and Hippo/YAP signaling is not novel. The connection between MAP4K4 and STRIPAK is not novel either. But, the finding that SV can induce transformation through the STRIPAK/MAP4K4 and through changes in the PP2A complex interactome is novel.

The main conclusion is based on the fact that ST induce a 2-3 fold binding of MAP4K to the STRIPAK complex and that this decrease MAP4K4 phosphorylation and activity. This is a novel finding, but in reality, how much of MAP4K is actually bound to the STRIPAK complex vs. non-STRIPAK complex? It would have been nice to validate these data in some other cell lines. The data in HEK293 cells stand a bit alone and never becomes really powerful.

The reviewer is correct in pointing out that only a fraction of MAP4K4 is bound to STRIPAK as demonstrated in the Co-IP study shown in Figure 3C. This is not surprising since phosphatases do not form tight complexes with substrates, and we envision that STRIPAK allows MAP4K4 to be modified by PP2A where it then dissociates from STRIPAK. To further validate these observations in other cell contexts, in addition to HEK TER cells which are Immortalized epithelial cells from kidney and distinct from HEK293 cells, we have used IMR90 as well as HEK293T for some of the studies, thus confirming the interactions in other cell types (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A-B). We also applied the MAP4K4 knockdown signature across 416 cell lines to apply some of our results in a broader context (Figure 8C-D).

The authors also do not demonstrate if the PP2A per se is responsible for the lower MPA4K4 phosphorylation.

Please also see the response to reviewer 1, point 4. Our new data (Figure 3E) demonstrates that PP2A activity in ST-expressing cells relative to GFP control is elevated by >2 fold towards 2 independent phosphopeptides derived from MAP4K4. To confirm that the dephosphorylation occurs through PP2A, we showed that it can be blocked by the specific inhibitor okadaic acid.

The paper is interesting but the data has a high degree of inconsistency, in particular when correlating the AI growth with the protein knockdown efficiencies using different ablation techniques. In many experiment there is no consistency between protein levels using different shRNA, gRNAs and the AI growth (Figure 1B, 4B and E).

We have quantified the immunoblots to clarify the relationship between protein levels induced by the shRNAs and sgRNAs and transformation phenotypes (AI and tumor growth) (Figure 5—figure supplement 1B, D). In addition, the reviewer highlights a well-known issue with AI assays. The background of such assays varies sometimes widely between experiments, and we have focused on the differences between control and experimental groups rather than absolute values. To further support these observations, we have now included xenograft experiments that confirm the findings in the AI assays.

They explain these discrepancies by arguing that intermediate levels of MAP4K4 are need to induce transformation – not a complete suppression!! This makes the data hard to interpret and hard to accept. The explanation is plausible and is supported by the MAP4K4 inhibitor experiment. However, more emphasis should be made on this intermediated level of MAP4K4 levels to convince the reader. I.e. it would be nice to see if higher conc. of Compound 29 (3-5 μM) completely inhibit AI growth. Again more cell lines should be validated.

There are many genes that when fully depleted are required for cell proliferation or survival but exhibit different phenotypes when partially suppressed or inhibited. We have previously shown that the core subunits of PP2A exhibit this behavior (PP2A A and C subunits). Indeed, such hypomorphic phenotypes are likely induced by most therapeutic agents that do not completely inhibit their targets in vivo. We have added additional text in the Discussion to clarify this phenotype of MAP4K4, which we have also observed with PP2A Aα and Cα. Specifically, germline deletion of MAP4K4 is embryonic lethal. Yet, we, as well as others (Westbrook et al., 2005), have found that partial knockdown of MAP4K4 can drive oncogenic transformation.

Could the data be explained by redundancy from MAP4K6 (MINK1) and MAP4K7 (TNIK) which both show redundancy with MAP4K4 in activity and binding to the STRIPAK complex as demonstrated in the papers:

-Misshapen-like kinase 1 (MINK1) Is a Novel Component of Striatin-interacting Phosphatase and Kinase (STRIPAK) and Is Required for the Completion of Cytokinesis and The Ste20 Family Kinases MAP4K4, MINK1

-TNIK Converge to Regulate Stress-Induced JNK Signaling in Neurons

We have evaluated whether MINK1 interacts with STRIPAK and have not found an interaction in this context. Furthermore, we did not recover any of these kinases in the ST proteomic analysis (Rozenblatt- Rosen et al., 2012). We have added this point to the Discussion section of the manuscript.

The text is poorly written and the figure legends are not helping the reader. For instance, when comparing shLuc in Figure 1, the AI is around 20, when looking at shLuc in Figure 3 the AI is around 100-150. In this case, the authors should state in the figures and legends if the cells used in the experiment were transformed or not prior to performing the experiment.

The reviewer is correct, and we apologize for the lack of clarity and completeness in the original submission. We have completely revised the text and the figure legends in this revised version.

In addition, the reviewer highlights a well-known issue with AI assays. The background of such assays varies sometimes widely between experiments, and we have focused on the differences between control and experimental groups rather than absolute values. To further support these observations, we have now included xenograft experiments that confirm the findings in the AI assays.

Most confusing is when the authors keep talking about a MAP4K4 signature, which in reality is a 'loss-of-MAP4K4' signature in the entire Figure 6.

We have revised the text to indicate that this is a MAP4K4 knockdown signature. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out.

The authors need to run through their text and fix all these issues. I.e they write 'indicating that YAP1 is necessary for MAP4K4 mediated transformation. This statement is false; it should be opposite: indicating that YAP1 is necessary for loss-of-MAP4K4 mediated transformation.

We have corrected this mistake. More generally, we have completely revised the manuscript to address these issues in the original submission.

The reader is kept with certain doubt all the time, when reading the paper and one never really gets convinced by the end. This is a pity! A massive editing (text, figure and legends) is needed to give this a nice flow. Additional validation of shRNA constructs and additional cell lines should be a requisite before acceptance.

We agree and have completely revised the manuscript and figure legends. We have re-organized the presentation of the manuscript to make the points more clearly. In addition, we have performed a substantial number of new experiments. We believe that these changes have strengthened the manuscript considerably and thank the reviewers for all of their thoughtful and constructive criticisms.

[Editors’ note: what follows is the authors’ response to the second round of review.]

Essential revisions:

1) Figure 1 and Figure 1—figure supplement 1: The new phosphoproteomics experiment introducing the manuscript is confusing in the way it is presented. Different results are obtained for shRNA to the same target. Is this due to differences in the extent of knockdown? A western blot to document expression levels would be helpful. Would it be simpler to present data from those shRNA that do cause transformation compared to the shLuc control? Data from the GFP control (panel 1A) are not presented. The heat map scale (panel 1B) should provide a numbers.

We and others (Sablina et al., 2010) have shown that complete suppression of PP2A Ca induces cell death but partial suppression of PP2A Ca results in cell transformation. In this manuscript, we included two shRNAs targeting PP2A Ca. shPP2A Cα1 suppresses PP2A Ca completely and induces cell death while expression of shPP2A Cα1 results in partial suppression of shPP2A Ca and cell transformation.

In addition, we included two shRNAs targeting PP2A B56γ. Expression of shB56γ1 suppressed B56γ to a greater extent than found when we expressed shB56γ2 and correspondingly induced a stronger transformation phenotype. To clarify these findings, we now include mRNA levels for each of the targeted genes in Figure 1—figure supplement 1A-B. We note that the available antibodies specific for PP2A C recognize epitopes shared by PP2A Cα and Cβ, which makes it impossible to distinguish between these two isoforms by immunoblotting.

The data from GFP control (or the shLuc) are not represented because they have been used as controls to perform normalization (GFP control for ST, shLuc control for shRNAs against PP2A). We have added additional text to the Figure legends and text to clarify this experimental detail. In addition, we have added numbers to the heat map scale in the revised Figure 1.

2) A key conclusion of the previous version of this manuscript was MAP4K4-directed PP2A-STRN activity in the presence of ST. A direct experimental validation of this conclusion was requested. The revised manuscript includes this experiment, but as stated by the authors, the presence of ST in the PP2A complex could not be confirmed because of reagent issues (ST co-migrates with small IgG band). It is unclear how the data presented were normalized – to STRN4 inputs, or to co-IP-ed PP2A-C levels in the STRN4 IPs? The authors seem to have used equal amounts of total lysate in both conditions to IP STRN4 from, but this does not suffice to show that equal STRN4 levels were IP-ed, let alone that equal PP2A-C levels were present in both IPs. Could the ST levels in these IPs be determined by an MS-based approach? Could recombinant ST be added to STRN4 IPs and the effect on PP2A activity measured?

The reviewers have raised an important question. In the revised manuscript, we re-analyzed our mass spectrometry experiments to determine whether ST peptides were present in in the STRN4 immune complexes isolated from cells expressing ST but not GFP. Specifically, we used a newly available 2019 database of human proteins (vs. the 2015 database in the prior version of the manuscript) and also searched for methionine modifications. We found that methionine modified peptides corresponding to STare indeed present in these immune complexes. We now include this new analysis in Figure 6—figure supplement 1A in the revised manuscript.

The reviewers also requested clarification on whether our immunoprecipitation experiments were performed under conditions where equal amounts of STRN4 were loaded for the phosphatase assay in Figure 3E. We now provide IP/immunoblotting data to confirm that equal amounts of STRN4 was analyzed from GFP- and ST-expressing cells (Figure 3—figure supplement 1C).

The reviewers suggested an experiment to use recombinant ST to address this issue. In our experience, recombinant ST is difficult to produce, and several lines of evidence indicate that the assembly of PP2A complexes is a complex process that is incompletely understood. Since we were able to use mass spectrometry to answer the key question raised by the reviewers, we believe that the new data included in the revised manuscript more directly addresses this question.

3) In Figure 6B, more PP2A-C is co-IPed with STRN4 in ST overexpressing cells, while in Figure 3—figure supplement 1B this does not seem to be the case (in Figure 3C it is more difficult to judge). If more PP2A-C is co-IPed with STRN4 in ST versus GFP overexpressing cells, this would provide evidence for a relative redistribution of PP2A-C subunits into STRN4 complexes versus other PP2A B subunit-type complexes upon ST expression, and provide an explanation for the observed increase in activity. If, however, this would not be the case, and the presence of ST can be demonstrated in the complex, this would suggest that ST might act as 'an activator' of STRN4-PP2A-mediated dephosphorylation of certain MAP4K4 sites. These questions lead to a lack of clarity concerning the mechanism-of-action of how ST stimulates STRN4-PP2A activity towards MAP4K4.

We thank the reviewers for identifying this apparent discrepancy. To address this question, we have repeated these experiments several times to assess the amount of PP2A C associated with STRN4 in ST-expressing cells. We have confirmed that in each case, we found no difference in the total amount of PP2A C subunit that is associated with STRN4 in ST- relative to GFP-expressing cells, as shown in the Figure 3C and Figure 3—figure supplement 1C. We have revised Figure 3C, Figure 3—figure supplement 1B, Figure 6C, as well as Figure 1—figure supplement 1B, Figure 6—figure supplement 1B to indicate that we are assessing total PP2A C subunit expression, rather than only the PP2A Cα subunit in the immunoblots.

While we originally observed 2.7-fold increase in Cα binding to STRN4 in ST- relative to GFP-expressing cells as shown in Figure 6B, when we re-analyzed the proteomic results to address reviewer’s point #2 using the latest database (2019 Human Database), we observed this interaction to be more modest (1.7-fold) than originally observed. We believe that this is because values used for the quantitation of the MudPIT results are relative values normalized against all other proteins in a run. As more proteins and spectral counts were retrieved in the re-analysis using the latest database (e.g. 4517 vs. 8064 peptides), many of the values for proteins changed.

In addition, we observed that binding of PP2A Cb to STRN4 only occurred in GFP- but not the ST-expressing cells. When we factor in the relative abundance of both PP2A C subunits, we find that the net changes in the interaction of STRN4 with the PP2A C subunits is 1.1-fold, which is consistent with the co-IP experiment where the antibody cannot distinguish Cα from Cβ but simply detects total PP2A C isoforms.

Taken together, these observations and analyses suggest that ST promotes the dephosphorylation of specific MAP4K4 sites (Figure 3E) without increasing the specific association of total C subunit with STRN4. To reflect this, we have revised Figure 6B to include STRN4 interactions with both PP2A catalytic C isoforms, as well as updated the results of the re-analysis. We have also added more text in the Discussion section of the manuscript to address this important point. Additional experiments beyond the scope of this work are required to fully elucidate how ST regulates the associated PP2A activity towards MAP4K4.

4) Figure 6—figure supplement 1C: indications of statistical significance are missing

We have performed a student’s t-test and added the p-values to the revised Figure 6—figure supplement 1D.

Author details

1. Jong Wook Kim

   1. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
   2. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
   3. Division of Medical Genetics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
   4. Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization

   Contributed equally with

   Christian Berrios, Miju Kim and Amy E Schade

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3021-7193

2. Christian Berrios

   1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
   2. Program in Virology, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology

   Contributed equally with

   Jong Wook Kim, Miju Kim and Amy E Schade

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Miju Kim

   1. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
   2. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Validation, Investigation, Methodology

   Contributed equally with

   Jong Wook Kim, Christian Berrios and Amy E Schade

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Amy E Schade

   1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
   2. Program in Virology, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States

   Contribution

   Validation, Investigation, Methodology

   Contributed equally with

   Jong Wook Kim, Christian Berrios and Miju Kim

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0342-8251

5. Guillaume Adelmant

   1. Department of Cancer Biology and Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
   2. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
   3. Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Huwate Yeerna

   Division of Medical Genetics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Emily Damato

   Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States

   Contribution

   Validation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Amanda Balboni Iniguez

   1. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
   2. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Laurence Florens

   Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Michael P Washburn

    1. Stowers Institute for Medical Research, Kansas City, United States
    2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, United States

    Contribution

    Supervision, Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7568-2585

11. Kim Stegmaier

    1. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    2. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Resources, Supervision, Investigation

    Competing interests

    has previously consulted for Novartis and Rigel Pharmaceuticals and receives grant funding from Novartis on unrelated topics

12. Nathanael S Gray

    Department of Cancer Biology and Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Resources

    Competing interests

    is a founder, science advisory board member and equity holder in Gatekeeper, Syros, Petra, C4, B2S and Soltego. Also receives or has received research funding from Novartis, Takeda, Astellas, Taiho, Janssen, Kinogen, Voronoi, Her2llc, Deerfield and Sanofi

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5354-7403

13. Pablo Tamayo

    1. Division of Medical Genetics, School of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States
    2. Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States

    Contribution

    Supervision, Visualization, Methodology

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

14. Ole Gjoerup

    Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Supervision

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

15. Jarrod A Marto

    1. Department of Cancer Biology and Blais Proteomics Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    2. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    3. Department of Oncologic Pathology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Supervision, Methodology

    Competing interests

    serves on the scientific advisory board of 908 Devices and has received sponsored research funding from AstraZeneca and Vertex

16. James DeCaprio

    1. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    2. Program in Virology, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    3. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration

    For correspondence

    james_decaprio@dfci.harvard.edu

    Competing interests

    has served as a consultant to Merck & Co, Inc and has received research funding from Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Inc

17. William C Hahn

    1. Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, United States
    2. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, United States
    3. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Project administration

    For correspondence

    william_hahn@dfci.harvard.edu

    Competing interests

    Reviewing editor, eLife. Consultant for Thermo Fisher, AjuIB, MPM Capital, iTeos, Tyra Biosciences, Frontier Medicines and Parexel. Founder and serves on the scientific advisory board of KSQ Therapeutics.

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2840-9791

• 3,224

  Page views

• 553

  Downloads

• 31

  Citations

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