Tumour Initiation: Danger zone
When a cell multiplies, differentiates or dies, it relies on a number of complex signalling networks. In turn, mutations in nodes that increase or decrease communication through these networks frequently result in diseases. An example is the Ras gene family, which is often mutated in cancer: activating mutations at certain Ras codons leads to cells proliferating and forming tumours (Prior et al., 2020). However, too much activation can trigger safety mechanisms and cause the cell to die. How much Ras activity is enough to drive cancer is therefore a fundamental question.
For a long time it was assumed that any mutation that activated Ras proteins would lead to disease. New evidence, however, has revealed that local cellular and disease context creates important differences between Ras mutants (Killoran and Smith, 2019; Haigis et al., 2019). In one study in mice, for example, out of twelve different mutations introduced in equal quantities in a Ras gene called KRAS, only five led to the animals developing lung tumours (Winters et al., 2017). Intriguingly, which mutation drives disease was different depending on the type of cancer, and the genetic background of the mouse strain. These data imply mutation-specific differences in Ras biology.
Now, in eLife, Siqi Li and Christopher Counter from Duke University report having described the optimal conditions in which various Ras mutations operate (Li et al., 2018). According to a previously proposed ‘sweet spot’ model, there is a level of Ras activity high enough to promote tumour formation, but not to lead to cell death (Li and Counter, 2021). To examine this further, a classic mouse cancer model was exposed to urethane, a chemical found in fermented foods that consistently generates a codon Q61* mutation in KRAS and leads to Ras-driven lung cancer (Westcott et al., 2015; Dwyer-Nield et al., 2010). Codon Q61* mutations are known to lead to more Ras activity than codon G12* mutations (Burd et al., 2014; Figure 1); this suggests that codon Q61* mutations, rather than G12*, have optimal levels of Ras signalling in this urethane-induced cancer model.
To test if weaker G12* mutations could also induce cancer in this model, a mouse strain with increased KRAS expression (called KRASex3op) was exposed to urethane, artificially boosting the amount of active Ras. Even though Q61* mutations were still generated, G12* mutations were found to drive the development of tumours in these animals; this demonstrated that the switch was due to Ras biological properties, a result consistent with the sweet spot model.
Whether strong Ras signalling – which would normally induce cell death – could be moved into the optimal activity zone was explored by deleting p53 in wild type mice. This gene instructs cells to die when oncogenic stress induces unrepairable DNA damage. As predicted, p53-/-, KRASex3opmouse strains with increased KRAS expression and depleted p53 could tolerate high levels of Q61* mutations (Figure 1). Intriguingly, p53-/- mice also showed an endogenous amplification of KRAS, which moved G12* mutations up into the optimal Ras signalling zone. This was not due to additional copies of Ras genes, but to an increase in the production of messenger RNAs carrying the G12* change.
Together, these data reveal a narrow window of cancer-causing Ras activity; this suggests that the role of specific Ras mutations, and how they are combined, needs to be considered for research design and treatment options. However, further studies ought to formally quantify how a range of Ras mutations and combinations differ in their relative activity. This will help to confirm whether the model holds true across a broader range of cancer contexts, and to more precisely determine optimal Ras activity.
The model is based on observed endpoints, after tumours have grown. Yet, it is reasonable to assume that the optimal level of Ras signalling changes as the cancer develops: for instance, Ras alleles are amplified and lost over the life history of cancer, and in response to therapy (Burgess et al., 2017). An exciting observation was the increase in KRAS messenger RNA to help modulate Ras activity; however, this still needs to be validated by measuring Ras protein levels. Finally, how variable levels of Ras activity then variously impact wider cancer signalling networks is a big question that remains unanswered.
References
-
Conformational resolution of nucleotide cycling and effector interactions for multiple small GTPases determined in parallelJournal of Biological Chemistry 294:9937–9948.https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA119.008653
-
A model for RAS mutation patterns in cancers: finding the sweet spotNature Reviews Cancer 18:767–777.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0076-6
-
The frequency of Ras mutations in cancerCancer Research 80:2969–2974.https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-3682
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
- Version of Record published: May 17, 2021 (version 1)
Copyright
© 2021, Butt and Prior
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 903
- views
-
- 68
- downloads
-
- 2
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Further reading
-
- Cancer Biology
- Cell Biology
Enhanced protein synthesis is a crucial molecular mechanism that allows cancer cells to survive, proliferate, metastasize, and develop resistance to anti-cancer treatments, and often arises as a consequence of increased signaling flux channeled to mRNA-bearing eukaryotic initiation factor 4F (eIF4F). However, the post-translational regulation of eIF4A1, an ATP-dependent RNA helicase and subunit of the eIF4F complex, is still poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that IBTK, a substrate-binding adaptor of the Cullin 3-RING ubiquitin ligase (CRL3) complex, interacts with eIF4A1. The non-degradative ubiquitination of eIF4A1 catalyzed by the CRL3IBTK complex promotes cap-dependent translational initiation, nascent protein synthesis, oncogene expression, and cervical tumor cell growth both in vivo and in vitro. Moreover, we show that mTORC1 and S6K1, two key regulators of protein synthesis, directly phosphorylate IBTK to augment eIF4A1 ubiquitination and sustained oncogenic translation. This link between the CRL3IBTK complex and the mTORC1/S6K1 signaling pathway, which is frequently dysregulated in cancer, represents a promising target for anti-cancer therapies.
-
- Cancer Biology
In several large-scale replication projects, statistically non-significant results in both the original and the replication study have been interpreted as a ‘replication success.’ Here, we discuss the logical problems with this approach: Non-significance in both studies does not ensure that the studies provide evidence for the absence of an effect and ‘replication success’ can virtually always be achieved if the sample sizes are small enough. In addition, the relevant error rates are not controlled. We show how methods, such as equivalence testing and Bayes factors, can be used to adequately quantify the evidence for the absence of an effect and how they can be applied in the replication setting. Using data from the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, the Experimental Philosophy Replicability Project, and the Reproducibility Project: Psychology we illustrate that many original and replication studies with ‘null results’ are in fact inconclusive. We conclude that it is important to also replicate studies with statistically non-significant results, but that they should be designed, analyzed, and interpreted appropriately.