The human kinome is encoded by more than 500 genes which lead to the synthesis of functionally diverse kinases. Kinases are different in their domain composition but all contain a structurally conserved phosphotransferase domain (Manning, 2009, Kornev and Taylor, 2010). Conventionally, protein kinases function as enzymes that enable the transfer of a phosphate group from ATP to defined amino acids of a target protein. Protein kinases regulate various aspects of cellular functions including cell survival, apoptosis, cell division, and metabolism via reversible and tightly regulated phosphorylations (Figure 1A; Bhullar et al., 2018, Blume-Jensen and Hunter, 2001, Manning et al., 2002). In addition to kinase phosphotransferase activities, kinase domains display scaffolding functions (Shrestha et al., 2020, Reiterer et al., 2014).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Raw unedited western blots shown in Figure 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig1-data1-v1.zip

Download elife-94755-fig1-data1-v1.zip

Figure 1—source data 2

Uncropped and labelled western blots shown in Figure 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig1-data2-v1.pdf

Download elife-94755-fig1-data2-v1.pdf

On the cellular level, kinases act as molecular switches, adopting conformational states that align with an active (ON) or inactive (OFF) kinase state (Huse and Kuriyan, 2002, Yamaguchi and Hendrickson, 1996, Lopez et al., 2020, Feichtner et al., 2022). These ON and OFF states of protein kinases signify a switch-like behavior which is governed by a collection of molecular mechanisms (Figure 1A). Kinases integrate, amplify and relay a wide variety of input signals, underscoring their pivotal role in numerous signaling pathways that often involve interconnected kinase regulation. Thus, one kinase directly modulates the activity level and role of the subsequent kinase in a cascade-like structure (Guo et al., 2020, Avruch et al., 2001). This regulation is facilitated by the formation of multi-protein complexes to spatiotemporally control and amplify signal transmission (Morrison, 2001, Pouysségur et al., 2002). Figure 1A highlights several factors affecting kinase functions. Selected modes of kinase regulation which are of relevance for the presented study are listed below.

First, the activity of a kinase can be altered by post-translational modifications (PTMs) of selected amino acids. PTMs alter kinase characteristics like its activity status, its location within the cell, rate of degradation, and its associations with other proteins (Chou, 2020, Cohen, 2000, Deribe et al., 2010).

Second, the scaffolding functions of kinase domains accompany the process of phosphotransferase reactions. These play central roles in the activation and deactivation process of interacting kinase protomers. This feature is key for pseudokinase activities, for relaying signaling inputs without catalytic functions (Weinlich and Green, 2014, Morrison and Davis, 2003, Boudeau et al., 2006).

Third, kinase functions depend on decisive regulatory protein interactions or movements for which several modes of regulation have been described. Intramolecular auto-inhibitory modules (AIMs) alter kinase activity states by reducing the accessibility of the substrate protein for the subsequent kiss-and-run phosphotransferase reaction (Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Pufall and Graves, 2002, Xu et al., 2002). In some cases, kinase domain activities are controlled through inter- or intramolecular interactions with substrate-like sequences. Pseudo-substrate stretches bind to the catalytic cleft of the kinase and hinder the phosphorylation of the substrate. This binding to the catalytic site is altered in response to input signals and manifested in kinase conformational changes, which in turn coordinate protein kinase activation cycles (Schmitt et al., 2022, Kemp et al., 1994). Besides intramolecular inhibition both activating and inactivating regulatory protein interactions exist and have been described for prototypical kinases such as PKA and CDKs (Boudeau et al., 2003, Taylor et al., 2005).

Fourth, kinase regulation is strongly dependent on the expression pattern and how the protein is stabilized in regard to the cell fate within the respective cell system or compartment (Capra et al., 2006).

Fifth, regulatory protein interactions of kinases depend on small molecule interactions. Besides different types of second messengers (e.g. Ca²⁺, IP3, cAMP) (Newton et al., 2016, Kasai and Petersen, 1994) a collection of metabolites and ions contribute in orchestrating cellular kinase functions (Ramms et al., 2021).

Alterations of the ON and OFF states of kinases are also pertinent to kinase-related disorders. Deregulation of kinase functions is associated with the development of numerous diseases, such as cancer, inflammatory, infectious, and degenerative conditions (Shchemelinin et al., 2006, Köstler and Zielinski, 2015, Ferguson and Gray, 2018). Kinase malfunctions result from gene mutations, deletions, fusions, or increased or aberrant expressions. These mechanisms result in gain or loss of function of the involved kinase pathways, thus driving disease etiology and progression (Ochoa et al., 2018, Van et al., 2021, Cicenas et al., 2018).

For this technical report, we have incorporated disease-relevant full-length phosphotransferases which exhibit different modes of regulation into the kinase conformation (KinCon) reporter system. The KinCon reporter platform is a Renilla luciferase (RLuc) based protein-fragment complementation assay, which is based on the fusion of two fragments of RLuc to the N and the C terminus of a full-length kinase. This reporter can be used to track dynamic changes of kinases conformations due to mutations, PTMs, protein:protein interactions (PPIs), or binding of bioactive small molecules. We discuss the KinCon reporter principle at the beginning of the Results section. The kinases listed below are characterized by distinctive modes of regulation, are viable targets for inhibition, or are difficult to assess directly through traditional biochemical measurements: the liver kinase B1 (LKB1, STK11), the receptor-interacting serine/threonine-protein kinase 1 (RIPK1), and the cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6).

LKB1 is active as trimeric cytoplasmic protein complex. It is the upstream regulator of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) (Rodríguez et al., 2021). LKB1 promotes AMPK signaling by forming an heterotrimeric complex with the pseudokinase STE20-related adaptor alpha (STRADα) and the scaffolding protein Mouse protein-25 (MO25) through phosphorylation and thus activation of cytoplasmic AMPK (Boudeau et al., 2004, Narbonne et al., 2010). Mutations in LKB1 can lead to the autosomal dominant disease Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) (Mehenni et al., 1998, Beggs et al., 2010). Inactivating mutations of LKB1 are frequently observed in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), cervical carcinoma, and malignant melanoma (Wingo et al., 2009, Ndembe et al., 2022).

RIPK1 acts as a central stress sensor to control cell survival, inflammation, and cell death signaling (Clucas and Meier, 2023). Deregulation of RIPK1- and RIPK3-involved signaling cascades have been linked to inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune conditions, and neuroinflammatory diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease (Martens et al., 2020, Li et al., 2019, Speir et al., 2021, Clucas and Meier, 2023). This is believed to be related to deregulations of both catalytic and kinase scaffolding functions. Thus, a collection of small molecule blockers has been identified to interfere with RIPK1 signaling and function. It’s intriguing to note that RIPK1 and RIPK3 may share a similar mechanism of action with BRAF, as their structural arrangements and the dimerization of their kinase domains bear resemblance (Raju et al., 2018). In addition to this, auto-phosphorylation of RIPK1 and RIPK3 represents a central regulatory element, overall showing some similar molecular ties to BRAF (Laurien et al., 2020).

Unlike the auto-inhibitory mechanisms of kinase regulation, some kinases dynamically engage with activating and deactivating polypeptides (Zhang et al., 2021). One of the best studied examples is the interaction of regulatory proteins with the catalytic subunits of the cAMP-controlled serine/ threonine protein kinase A (PKA) (Taylor et al., 2012, Zhang et al., 2020). In a similar manner CDKs form active and inactive protein complexes to directly promote the cell cycle (Goel et al., 2018). The central role of CDK4/6 lies in regulating cell cycle progression by phosphorylating and activating the key substrate retinoblastoma protein (Rb) that promotes G1 to S phase transition. On the molecular level this is controlled by complex formation of CDK4 and CDK6 with regulatory polypeptides (James et al., 2008). Binding to p16^INK4a, one of the most frequently mutated tumor suppressor proteins, blocks CDK4/6 functions (Quelle et al., 1997). Cancer mutations in p16^INK4a counteract this. As a result, kinase activating cyclinD proteins bind to CDK4/6 to promote carcinogenesis (VanArsdale et al., 2015). Thus, CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) found the way into the clinic, in particular for treating breast cancer patients (Nebenfuehr et al., 2020; Yu et al., 2006). The development of drug resistance upon CDK4/6 inhibitor therapies underscores the need for personalized treatments that consider the patient’s genetic profile and the underlying alterations of CDK4/6 complexes present in their cancer cells (Álvarez-Fernández and Malumbres, 2020, Knudsen and Witkiewicz, 2017).

Various cellular mechanisms are employed to control the molecular switch-like behavior of protein kinases to temporally lock them into either an active or inactive conformation. These mechanisms include the PTMs of specific residues, the binding of regulatory proteins or co-factors, and allosteric changes induced by ligands (Bhullar et al., 2018, Taylor et al., 2021, Newton, 2001). This precisely controlled mode of action can be hindered, among others by patient-specific mutations or modified by bioactive small molecules (Figure 1A). Conventional methods often fall short in capturing the dynamics of kinase phosphotransferase and scaffolding activities which occur in their native cellular environments (Klaeger et al., 2017, Croce et al., 2019). This underscores the importance of advanced biotechnology-centered strategies for a comprehensive understanding of drug target engagement and protein binding in the intact cell. Here, we show that genetically encoded KinCon reporters are extendable to many more kinases, to enable systematic monitoring of cellular kinase activity states in living cells. In addition to its predictive capabilities, the KinCon technology serves as a valuable tool for uncovering cellular factors influencing drug efficacy (Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Fleischmann et al., 2023, Röck et al., 2019). Such insights into the molecular structure dynamics of kinases in intact cells upon interactions with small molecule inhibitors or regulatory proteins is necessary for the design of more effective therapeutic strategies.

Kinases act as molecular switches to integrate, amplify, restrict, and/or relay signal propagation in spatiotemporal fashion and in cell-type-specific manner. The precise coordination of usually oscillating kinase activities is a prerequisite for proper signal transmission (Taylor et al., 2012, Pan and Heitman, 2002). When investigating pathological kinase functions for therapeutic purposes, it is crucial to take the cellular elements that influence kinase activities into account. In Figure 1A we list a collection of factors which affect kinase activity states. It is thus essential to closely monitor the physiological and pathophysiological kinase functions of activation and deactivation in intact cell settings in the presence and absence of patient mutation and drug exposure.

One cell-based technology for studying cellular kinase activity states is the KinCon reporter technology (Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Fleischmann et al., 2023). It is a highly sensitive assay for tracking kinase activities which is mirrored by the alterations of full-length kinase structures in cells. With in silico predictions it was projected that more than 200 protein kinases of the human kinome contain cis-regulatory elements. In many cases these sequence stretches act as auto-inhibitory modules, so called AIMs (Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Yeon et al., 2016). In Figure 1B we depict exemplary how underlying kinase ON and OFF states can be tracked using KinCon reporter technology (Enzler et al., 2020). The readout is based on the molecular motion of the full-length kinase containing diverse cis-regulatory elements / AIMs. Cell-type-specific KinCon measurement allows the testing of the influence of mutations, signaling pathway activation, binary protein interactions, and drug binding on the respective reporter reflecting conformational changes of full-length kinases. We have previously applied the technology to gain insights into the functioning of two kinases that belong to the MAPK pathway. In these proof-of-concept studies, we showed that BRAF and MEK1 KinCon reporters are direct real-time readouts for kinase activities in intact cell settings caused or altered by mutation and drug treatments (Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Fleischmann et al., 2021, Fleischmann et al., 2023).

The construction principle of the KinCon reporter is modular. For the generation of the genetically encoded KinCon reporter the sequence of the kinase of choice is inserted into the multiple cloning site (MCS) of a mammalian expression construct. The MCS is flanked by the coding regions of a split luminescent protein for cellular over-expression experiments of the encoded hybrid reporter protein (see the KinCon reporter protein domain structure at the top of Figure 1C). In many cases it is sufficient to fuse to the N and C terminus of the full-length kinase sequence the two fragments of the respective reporter protein (with intervening flexible linker stretches shown in red, Figure 1B and C).

In this study we used the protein-fragment complementation fragments (PCA, F[1]- and -F[2]) of the Renilla luciferase (RLuc-PCA) (Stefan et al., 2007). The KinCon reporters are constructed to facilitate the intramolecular complementation of appended RLuc PCA fragments. Transient expression offers the flexibility to analyze different time frames for KinCon reporter expression and drug candidate exposures, in either low- or high-throughput format in intact cells (Figure 1C). Besides applying wild-type (wt) reporters it allows for the ‘personalization’ of the sensor setup by integrating patient-specific mutations, co-expressing regulatory proteins, or making systematic changes to PTM sites.

Following KinCon reporter expression along with co-expression of interacting molecules in the appropriate cell plate format, systematic perturbations can be applied. Following addition of the luciferase substrate to cells grown in a mono-layer or in suspension, cellular bioluminescence signals are emanating from complemented RLuc PCA fragments (Figure 1B and C; Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020). Light recordings and subsequent calculations of time-dependent dosage variations of bioluminescence signatures of parallel implemented KinCon reporter configurations aid in establishing dose-response curves. These curves are used for discerning pharmacological characteristics such as drug potency, effectiveness of drug candidates, and potential drug synergies (Figure 1C). In order to enhance our understanding of kinase structure dynamics we selected a group of kinases which activities are altered in different pathological settings. These examples emphasize how mutations, PTMs, PPIs, or kinase drugs induce context-dependent effects on the conformation states of kinases. In Figure 1D we present a schematic and simplified depiction of the kinase’s ON and OFF conditions for complexes emanating from the kinases BRAF, LKB1, RIPK1, and CDK6. Exemplary, we show how protein complex formation and patient mutations contribute or perturb kinase activation cycles. As a starting point, we illustrated the high sensitivity of the reporter system for tracking basal activity conformations of the kinases BRAF-V600E, LKB1, RIPK1, and CDK6 respectively. We showed that transient over-expression of these KinCon reporters for a time frame of 10 hr, 16 hr, 24 hr, or 48 hr in HEK293T cells delivers consistently increasing signals for all KinCon reporters (Figure 1E, Figure 1—figure supplement 1A). Immunoblotting of cell lysates following luminescence measurements showed expression levels of the reporters in the range and below the endogenous expressed kinases (Figure 1E).

Next, we analyzed the BRAF kinase activity conformations using wild type (wt) and mutated KinCon BRAF reporters. The V600E mutation, found primarily in melanoma patients, effectively immobilized the respective BRAF KinCon reporter in its opened and active conformation (Davies et al., 2002, Lavoie et al., 2020, Karoulia et al., 2017, Lito et al., 2013, Röck et al., 2019). Previously we have shown that FDA-approved melanoma drugs (Vemurafenib, Encorafenib, Dabrafenib) and one drug candidate from clinical studies (PLX8394) converted the opened BRAF-V600E reporter back to the more closed and thus inactive conformation (Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Yao et al., 2019). Using this readout, we showed that at expression levels of the BRAF KinCon reporter below the immunoblotting detection limit, 1 hr of drug exposure exclusively converted BRAF-V600E to the more closed conformation (Figure 1F and G, Figure 1—figure supplement 1B). These data underline that at expression levels far below the endogenous kinase, protein activity conformations can be tracked in intact cells. This may represent the more authentic (patho)physiological context and takes the molecular interactions with endogenous factors into consideration.

Next, we adapted the KinCon biosensor technology to investigate the correlation between conformation and activity regulation of key kinase pathways. We analyzed three different kinase pathways displaying different modes of kinase ON-OFF regulation.

Trimeric LKB1 complexes

Upon heterotrimeric complex formation with the pseudokinase STRADα and the scaffolding protein MO25, the kinase LKB1 contributes to the activation of AMPK by phosphorylation at the position Thr172 (Figure 2A; Shackelford and Shaw, 2009, Boudeau et al., 2004, Baas et al., 2003). The pseudokinase domain of STRADα directly interacts with the kinase domain of LKB1, thus triggering the activation of LKB1’s tumor-suppressing phosphotransferase functions (Figure 2B and C). It is assumed that upon ATP-binding STRADα occupies an active conformation. In this scenario LKB1 affinities for binding rise and it binds as a pseudo-substrate. MO25 acts as scaffold for the kinase dimer to promote the activated LKB1 conformation state (Zeqiraj et al., 2009a, Zeqiraj et al., 2009b). Further, MO25 binding stabilizes this trimeric cytoplasmic complex (Figure 2A and B; Boudeau et al., 2003, Baas et al., 2003).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

Raw unedited western blots shown in Figure 2.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig2-data1-v1.zip

Download elife-94755-fig2-data1-v1.zip

Figure 2—source data 2

Uncropped and labelled western blots shown in Figure 2.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig2-data2-v1.pdf

Download elife-94755-fig2-data2-v1.pdf

The capacity of STRADα for allosterically modulating LKB1 functions through direct interaction underlines that pseudokinases are more than inert scaffolds. They are involved in modulating interacting enzyme entities (Rajakulendran and Sicheri, 2010, Reiterer et al., 2014). This is in line with the common belief that pseudokinases can employ switch-like transitions to regulate signaling networks (Kung and Jura, 2019, Shrestha et al., 2020). Given the discovery of LKB1 inactivating mutations in diseases like PJS, NSCLC, and colorectal cancer, there is a growing interest in exploring strategies to therapeutically restore the function of mutated LKB1 (Sanchez-Cespedes, 2007, Launonen, 2005, Kitajima et al., 2019).

In contrast to blockers of kinase functions it is more challenging to identify activator molecules for promoting reactivation of the LKB1-AMPK axis. Thus, we investigated the impact of trimeric complex formation of LKB1:STRADα:MO25 on downstream activity of LKB1. We adopted the KinCon technology for measuring involved kinase conformation states. First, we transiently over-expressed the three flag-tagged polypeptides LKB1, STRADα, and MO25 in HeLa cells. Next, we employed the pT172-AMPK/AMPK ratio as a measure of cellular LKB1 activity, observing the highest increase of LKB1-mediated downstream phosphorylation of AMPKα-T172 following co-expression of both, MO25 and STRADα, respectively. Using the chosen cellular setting and transfection protocol with a 1:1:1 ratio of transfected expression constructs, a similar effect was observed when solely over-expressing STRADα. No impact on AMPK phosphorylation was observed when MO25 was coexpressed alone (Figure 2D).

Next, we started to investigate the impact of LKB1 and MO25 co-expression on STRADα conformation changes. Notable is the fact that only faint STRADα KinCon signals were detected in the absence of MO25 and LKB1 co-expression. To our surprise we have observed a more than 10-fold elevation of the reporter signals following co-expression of both interacting partners in HEK293T cells (48 hr of expression, Figure 2E, Figure 2—figure supplement 1A). This data supports the notion that STRADα engages an opened conformation, where C and N termini are separated and thus almost no bioluminescence signals can be detected under basal conditions. Upon interaction with LKB1 this conformation shifts to a partially closed intermediate state. The trimeric complex further promotes structure closing. We have observed the same tendency – but to a lower extent – using LKB1 KinCon readouts in the presence and absence of both interacting proteins (Figure 2F, Figure 2—figure supplement 1B).

To validate these findings, we then tested the impact of the LKB1-binding deficient STRADα-H231A/ F233A (HF) mutant proteins (Boudeau et al., 2004) in co-expression experiments with the LKB1 KinCon reporter. It has previously been reported that these mutations prevent STRADα-LKB1 dimer and greatly hinders STRADα-MO25-LKB1 trimer formation and thereby AMPK activation (Zeqiraj et al., 2009a). We observed that the so-called HF double mutation of STRADα is sufficient to abolish the elevating effect of trimer complex formation (Figure 2G). Indeed both mutations are located in the LKB1/STRADα binding interface, thereby preventing complex formation (Qing et al., 2022, Zeqiraj et al., 2009a; Figure 2H). These findings underline that trimeric complex formation alters the opening and closing of the tested full-length kinase structures using the applied KinCon reporter readout. With this reporter technology we monitored the interaction controlled activities of LKB1 directly in a living cell setting.

LKB1 loss-of-function mutations have been identified in a plethora of pathological conditions including autosomal diseases and many different forms of cancers (Sanchez-Cespedes, 2007, Launonen, 2005, Molaei et al., 2022). Thus, we set out to analyze the impact of patient mutations on alterations of LKB1 kinase conformations.

In Figure 2C we have listed the proposed functions of the tested mutations. Three ‘tool’ mutations (K48R, R74A, and K78I) (Zubiete-Franco et al., 2019, Qing et al., 2022, Yang et al., 2019) and three patient mutations (D176N, D194N, and W308C, in red) (Ui et al., 2014, Al Bakir et al., 2023, Islam et al., 2019) were analyzed.

Figure 2H highlights the location of these mutations within LKB1. K78, D176, and D194 are highly conserved residues within the ATP-binding pocket and are critical for kinase activity: K78 forms a salt bridge with E98 on the αC-helix which stabilizes a functional active conformation, the catalytic D176 is crucial for phosphoryl transfer, and D194 is part of the DFG motif involved in binding of the Mg²⁺ ion (Fabbro et al., 2015, Meharena et al., 2016). The residue W308 is part of a hydrophobic cluster and thus surrounded by lipophilic residues (Zeqiraj et al., 2009a). R74 is located within the STRADα binding interface, and has been reported to interact with STRADα-Q251 (Zeqiraj et al., 2009a), and K48 is a solvent-exposed acetylation site (Zubiete-Franco et al., 2019, Zeqiraj et al., 2009a) located on the back of the N-lobe. Among these mutations, only the W308C mutation prevented significant closing of the LKB1 conformation when co-expressed with STRADα and MO25 (Figure 2I). This indicates that the catalytic site residues are critical for enzymatic activity, but play a less important role in maintaining the active LKB1 conformation in the presence of both STRADα and MO25. The W308C mutation has previously been identified to cause a reduction in LKB1 stability when compared to the wt variant (Islam et al., 2019), suggesting the polar side chain of cysteine likely disrupts the interaction network within the hydrophobic cluster. Additionally, the LKB1 mutant W308C diminishes its catalytic activity (Islam et al., 2019, Boudeau et al., 2004, Mehenni et al., 1998), consistent with the observed prevention of the PPI-directed closing of the LKB1 KinCon reporter conformation (Figure 2I). These findings suggest that LKB1-W308C lost its ability to form the heterotrimeric complex, with implications on hindering downstream activation and thus affecting its tumor suppressor functions. Overall these findings underline that the KinCon technology can be extended to track the impact of binary protein complexes and related cancer mutations on kinase activity dynamics. Moreover, this data demonstrated that in contrast to the previously published MEK1 and BRAF KinCon reporter (Fleischmann et al., 2021, Fleischmann et al., 2023, Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020), the more closed STRADα and LKB1 KinCon reporter conformations represent the more active full-length kinase states.

Mutations and inhibitors induce RIPK1 conformational changes

RIPK1 is a multi-functional protein and central regulator of cell death, inflammatory processes, and immune responses (Figure 3A; Degterev et al., 2019, Clucas and Meier, 2023, Silke and Meier, 2013). Genetic alterations of RIPK1 are linked to immune and autoinflammatory diseases (Lalaoui et al., 2020, Tao et al., 2020). Small molecule-mediated inhibition of RIPK1 kinase activity was shown to counteract the necroptotic phenotype in disease models (Tao et al., 2020). This exemplifies the potential of RIPK1 targeting drugs for the treatment of certain inflammatory diseases.

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3—source data 1

Raw unedited western blots underlying Figure 3 and shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig3-data1-v1.zip

Download elife-94755-fig3-data1-v1.zip

Figure 3—source data 2

Uncropped and labelled western blots Figure 3 and shown in Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig3-data2-v1.pdf

Download elife-94755-fig3-data2-v1.pdf

We established a KinCon reporter platform for monitoring the conformational changes of central kinases and pseudokinases involved in the necroptosis signaling pathway. Additionally, we examined the effects of binding of allosteric kinase blockers to both wt and mutant RIPK1 reporters. We depict the domain organization of RIPK1, RIPK3, and MLKL. We also included analyses of RIPK2, which is not part of the necroptosis pathway (Figure 3B). We cloned the human versions of these kinase genes into KinCon reporter expression constructs. After transient over-expression of these kinases in HEK293T cells, we quantified the basal RLuc PCA signals and compared these to the basal signal of the BRAF KinCon reporter (Figure 3C).

As starting point, we evaluated whether RIP kinases 1 and 3 activation would display conformational changes. We promoted necroptosis introducing stimuli by activating the TNFα pathway with TNFα (Christofferson et al., 2012), while preventing repressive RIPK1 ubiquitylation with the SMAC mimetic BV-6 (Li et al., 2011). To prevent the onset of apoptosis and instead induce activation of RIPK3, we blocked caspase 8 activation with the caspase inhibitor zVAD-FMK (Festjens et al., 2007) (as illustrated in Figure 3A).

We used HEK293T cells and transiently expressed the RIPK1 and RIPK3 KinCon reporters for 48 hr. Bioluminescence readouts of the KinCon reporters were quantified after indicated timings of TNFα, BV-6, and zVAD-FMK (TBZ) treatments. We observed successive accumulation of the respective KinCon reporter protein levels over the treatment time course (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). We assume that this is caused by blocking of caspase 8, thus preventing the cleavage of both RIPK KinCon biosensors. As consequence we normalized the obtained RLuc PCA signals on reporter expression levels. We showed that both KinCon reporters exhibit markedly reduced bioluminescence in the necroptotic cellular environment (Figure 3D). These results support the notion that both kinases shift to a more opened ON state of the full-length protein upon pathway activation.

Conformational modulation of the RIPK1 KinCon following TNFα pathway activation suggests that the reporter is incorporated into complex I. We were interested to test the degree to which the RIPK1 KinCon represents a functional RIPK1 entity. For this purpose, we conducted co-expression experiments of various RIPK1 KinCon and flag-tagged RIPK1 variants in RIPK1-deficient HEK293T cells. We used auto-phosphorylation at S166 as the primary readout for RIPK1 catalytic activity. Our results showed that the RIPK1 KinCon reporter was not capable of auto-phosphorylation. In the presence of active flag-tagged RIPK1 however, trans-phosphorylation of the KinCon reporter hybrid proteins was evident (Figure 3—figure supplement 2B).

To further deepen our understanding of the modes of RIPK1 activation we integrated a collection of missense mutations into the KinCon reporter. Their assumed functions have been listed in Figure 3E. At the kinase N terminus a stretch of phosphorylation sites are attributed to kinase activation. Auto-phosphorylations at the positions S14, S15, and S166 have been shown to trigger downstream activation (Laurien et al., 2020, Wang et al., 2018). The localizations are highlighted in the domain organization and the structure depiction of RIPK1 dimers (Figure 3E and F). It needs to be noted that additional kinases have been linked to control the phosphorylation and activity state of RIPK1 (Dondelinger et al., 2019, Xu et al., 2018, Jaco et al., 2017).

Auto-phosphorylation events have been described for the positions S14/S15/S166 (referred to as S14/15/166) and are critical for RIPK1 activation (Wang et al., 2021). Thus, we integrated mutations that mimic protein phosphorylation (S to E amino acid substitutions) and those that are deficient of phosphorylation (S to A amino acid substitutions), aiming to track their impact on molecular motions of RIPK1 to simulate the more activate kinase status. In addition, the kinase-deficient mutant K45A was investigated (Shutinoski et al., 2016). Interestingly, K45 in RIPK1 corresponds to K78 in LKB1, highlighting the importance of this lysine residue in the functionality of various kinases. Our KinCon findings unexpectedly demonstrated for RIPK1 that in addition to the kinase-deficient mutant (K45A) all the phosphorylation mimetic (S14/15/166E) and phosphorylation preventing (S14/15/166A) mutations tested led to an opening of RIPK1 conformations (Figure 3G).

We also incorporated prevalent patient mutations of RIPK1, observed in distinct inflammatory diseases, into the KinCon biosensor. Besides the patient mutations of the regulatory caspase 8 cleavage site in RIPK1 (D324A/E/H) we integrated the C601Y missense mutation, which causes immunodeficiency and inflammatory bowel disease, into the reporter (Li et al., 2019). Again, we observed an opening of RIPK1 conformations with all mutations tested (Figure 3H). This data supports the notion that in addition to preventing caspase 8 cleavage the mutations at position 324 affect the activity conformation of RIPK1. The C601Y substitution promotes RIPK1 opening as well.

We next tested all RIPK1 KinCon settings with the allosteric RIPK1 modulators GSK547 and Necrostatin (Puylaert et al., 2022, Cho et al., 2011). When bound to RIPK1, both of these compounds occupy a pocket located behind the ATP-binding site (Figure 3I, Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). The kinase-deficient mutation (K45A) of the KinCon biosensor displayed the strongest opening of the enzyme conformation. We used the RIPK1-K45A KinCon to benchmark the time-dependent effects of Necrostation and GSK547 on the conformational changes (Figure 3—figure supplement 1B). Application of both compounds showed engagement with all the tested RIPK1 KinCon reporters tested. An increase of bioluminescence for all RIPK1 inhibitors was evident reflecting the closing of the full-length kinase conformation. Even the phosphorylation mimetic (S14/15/166E) and phosphorylation preventing (S14/15/166A) KinCon reporters showed these phenomena of promoting a more closed configuration when compared to the unrelated small molecule control, the MEK1 kinase inhibitor Cobimetinib (Figure 3J, Figure 3—figure supplement 1C, Figure 3—figure supplement 2A). This data underlines that application of both allosteric kinase blockers alters the RIPK1 conformations and we assume scaffolding functions of active and inactive RIPK1 protomers.

CDK4 and CDK6 interactions and conformations

CDK4 and CDK6 exhibit proto-oncogenic properties that rely on the presence and interaction with regulatory proteins (Scheiblecker et al., 2020, Eferl and Wagner, 2003). Further, CDK6 functions as a chromatin-bound factor and transcriptional regulator, thereby promoting the initiation of tumorigenesis (Kollmann et al., 2013, Semczuk and Jakowicki, 2004, Scheicher et al., 2015; Kollmann and Sexl, 2013). These activities are modulated by its molecular interaction partners, particularly cyclins and proteinogenic inhibitors (Goel et al., 2018, Giacinti and Giordano, 2006, Ortega et al., 2002). CDK4/6 deregulation is caused by alterations of protein expression levels and/or by mutations within regulatory proteins. Prime example is the tumor suppressor protein p16^INK4a which is one of the most frequently mutated genes in human cancers (Romagosa et al., 2011, Liggett and Sidransky, 1998).

The CDK4/6-cyclinD protein complex has been found to be hyperactivated in many cancers and therefore promote tumor growth (Choi et al., 2012). This implies that CDK4/6 serves as a significant therapeutic target, and chemical inhibitors have been developed to target CDK4/6 phosphotransferase activities. Efficient CDK4/6 inhibitors such as Palbocilicb, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib are currently in clinical use against breast cancer (Otto and Sicinski, 2017). A major drawback of these therapies is the emergence of drug resistance (Fassl et al., 2022). The development of precision medicine oriented polypharmacology therapies is one strategy to avoid the early advent of resistance (Álvarez-Fernández and Malumbres, 2020, Yang et al., 2017).

On the molecular level CDK4/6 activity states depend on the formation of PPIs with cyclinD or p16^INK4a, wherein cyclinD activates them, while p16^INK4a inhibits kinase activity cycles of promoting Rb phosphorylation (Figure 4A). Distinct to the other kinases tested here, the CDK protein coding sequences are composed almost exclusively of the kinase domain with short additional stretches at the N and C termini (Figure 4B). In contrast to BRAF and RIPK1, the regulatory protein motifs are encoded by separate polypeptides. In the following, we tested the binary interaction of p16^INK4a with CDK4 and CDK6. Structures of these complexes have been described. It is evident that substitution of arginine at the position 31 of CDK6 with cysteine (R31C) alters the binding affinities for p16^INK4a. It forms two ionic interactions with p16^INK4a residues D74 and D84, which are lost in the R31C mutant (Figure 4C). Experimental data further supports this notion (Rodríguez-Díez et al., 2014). We included the respective mutations by generating CDK6-R31C and also the corresponding R24C mutated expression construct of CDK4 (CDK4-R24C). We conceived a work program with PPI and KinCon reporters to elucidate any relations of dimerization and drug binding.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4—source data 1

Raw unedited western blots shown in Figure 4.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig4-data1-v1.zip

Download elife-94755-fig4-data1-v1.zip

Figure 4—source data 2

Uncropped and labelled western blots shown in Figure 4.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/94755/elife-94755-fig4-data2-v1.pdf

Download elife-94755-fig4-data2-v1.pdf

We started analyzing binary protein interaction of p16^INK4a with CDK4 and CDK6. We fused the two RLuc fragments that are used in the KinCon reporter to two different proteins, in this case CDK4/CDK6 and p16^ink4a. When two proteins interact, the two RLuc PCA fragments form a complemented luciferase and an increased light signal can be detected (Figure 4D, left). Originally the underlying technology had been developed for the dynamic measurements of regulatory kinase interactions of PKA (Stefan et al., 2007). Besides testing the kinase mutations CDK6-R31C and CDK4-R24C we generated the murine homolog of p16^INK4a displaying the cancer mutation P40L. P40L showed reduced affinities for the tested CDKs and thus no longer inhibits phosphotransferase functions of CDK4/6 (Yarbrough et al., 1999). Upon complex formation of CDKs with p16^INK4a the C terminal fused RLuc PCA reporter fragments complement and bioluminescence signals can be detected directly in intact cells transiently expressing the hybrid proteins. Using this cell-based PPI reporter we observed a significant reduction of p16^INK4a:CDK4/6 complex formation when the respective R residues are mutated to C. Integration of the P40L mutation in p16^INK4a prevented complex formation as expected and further validates the reporter system applied (Figure 4D, Figure 4—figure supplement 1).

Next, we set out to test the impact of these CDK mutations on kinase conformations. We have previously shown that basal CDK4/6 KinCon conformation states can be tracked using the KinCon reporter technology (Mayrhofer et al., 2020). Thus, we evaluated if a reduction of interaction with inhibitory proteins such as p16^INK4a alters CDK full-length conformations. We transiently over-expressed the wt and mutant CDK4/6 KinCon reporter in HEK293T cells. After 48 hr of expression the cells were subjected to bioluminescence measurements. The results showed that the reduced affinity for p16^INK4a binding alters the conformations of both CDKs. P16^INK4a binding deficient CDK4 and CDK6 mutants exhibited a more opened conformation, as indicated by a decrease in bioluminescence (Figure 4E). In the following, all KinCon reporters have been subjected to analyses upon CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure (Yam et al., 2018). Again we used HEK293T cells and transiently expressed the wt and mutated KinCon reporters for 48 hr. We then exposed the cells to three clinically applied CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) at a concentration of 1 μM for 3 hr. Overall we could not detect any major effects of drug exposure on the dynamics of the four CDK KinCon reporters which showed different affinities for p16^INK4a binding (Figure 4F). This data underlines that these breast cancer drugs which should bind to the active protein kinase did not induce full-length CDK4 and CDK6 conformational changes in the tested cell culture settings.

Effect of different kinase inhibitor types on the KinCon reporter system

The inhibitors used in this study fall into different inhibitor categories (type I, type I 1/2, type II, and type III). The classification of inhibitors is determined by the activation state of the protein kinase, particularly the positioning of the DFG-Asp (active in, inactive out) and the αC-helix (active in, inactive out) (Zhang et al., 2009). However, type III (allosteric) inhibitors deviate from this pattern. They bind adjacent to the ATP-binding pocket, enabling simultaneous binding of ATP and the inhibitor (Wu et al., 2015). Type I inhibitors selectively bind to the active conformation of the kinase, characterized by DFG in and αC in. Type I 1/2 inhibitors, on the other hand, bind to the inactive state of the kinase, represented by DFG in and αC out. Type II inhibitors bind to the inactive kinase, where DFG is out and αC can be either in or out (Arter et al., 2022; Figure 5A and B). In this study we have observed alterations of KinCon activity conformations upon changes of protein interactions and through type I 1/2 and type III inhibitor binding (Figure 5A–C), but not type I inhibitors. We provide a summary of the changes in KinCon activity conformations. We have previously shown that for both kinases of the MAPK pathway, MEK1 and BRAF, the respective inhibitors affect primarily the active kinase conformation (Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Fleischmann et al., 2021, Fleischmann et al., 2023). Exemplarily we illustrate that both kinases which are activated through cancer patient mutations (BRAF-V600E and MEK1-K57E) bind the respective kinase inhibitor, resulting in a change in the activity conformations (Figure 5A and B). The same observation was made with the MEK1 KinCon upon activation through BRAF-mediated phosphorylation of the reporter (Fleischmann et al., 2023). In contrast, it was of interest that for all tested RIPK1 activity conformations we observed that the binding of allosteric RIPK1i promoted a closing of the RIPK1 conformation. In Figure 5B we exemplarily illustrate the impact of inhibitor binding on the kinase-dead version RIPK1-K45A. This observation underlines that also inactive RIPK1 complexes are target of drug binding with feasible consequences on kinase scaffolding functions. Kinase activities of CDK4/6 are regulated via defined PPIs (Nebenfuehr et al., 2020). We showed that reducing binding affinities for p16^INK4a and related inhibitory proteins triggers the opening of the KinCon (Figure 5C). However, using the applied standard protocols we have chosen for all CDK4/6 KinCon reporter we have not observed that any of the three clinically applied CDK4/6i tested (such as Abemaciclib) altered the kinase conformation significantly.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

In this context we would like to introduce another kinase example displaying regulatory PPI controlling the catalytic kinase protomer. When the regulatory (R) and the catalytic (C/PKAc) subunit interact, the tetrameric PKA holoenzyme complex (R2:C2) is inactive. When second messenger cAMP molecules bind to the R dimer, the complex dissociates and catalytic PKA subunits are activated (Taylor et al., 2013). Mutations such as L206R lock the catalytic subunit (PKAc) in its active state. Thus, interactions of regulatory subunits are significantly reduced (Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Bolger, 2022). Reduction of binding affinities through the use of the general cAMP elevating agent Forskolin triggers conformational changes to the more opened state, mechanistically similar to CDK6-R31C. The PKAc-L206R KinCon mutant already engages this opened activity conformation state (Figure 5D). Based on these two examples we assume that binary protein interactions are the prime factors for altering CDK4/6 and PKAc activity conformations.

In the context of kinase compartmentalization and activating kinase mutations we showed that using PKAc and BRAF KinCon reporters as example we could not track alterations of cytoplasmic and nuclear localization (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). Furthermore, subcellular localization of PKAc KinCon reporters did not change when the L206R mutation was introduced (Figure 5—figure supplement 1). As a control BRAF wt and V600E KinCon reporters were used and no changes in localization were observed.

In this study we focused on a collection of well-studied kinase pathways. In this regard it is important to note that only a limited number of human kinases are targeted by approved drugs. We have illustrated this by using a phylogenetic kinome tree to represent kinase relationships within the human kinome (Figure 5E). The blue squares indicate the kinase branches displaying approved kinase blockers. It is evident that numerous protein kinases lack drug candidates. Many of these miss suitable tools/readouts for basic research analyses of physiological and pathological kinase functions. Such kinases have been referred to be part of the so-called ‘dark kinome’ (Berginski et al., 2021, Southekal et al., 2021). In the kinome tree illustration we have integrated our growing catalog of KinCon reporters (red dots, Figure 5E). These conformation reporters represent an extendable toolbox for gaining first and also deeper insights into alterations of kinase activity-related conformation states induced by different means of inhibitors, activators, binders, or mutations. Systematic implementation of this technology in kinase research programs would assist in advancing our understanding of kinase and pseudokinase regulations and functions.

In the field of kinase-related diseases, mutations of different kinds and at different stages of kinase pathways have prompted the development of kinase-specific and small molecule-based inhibitors as primary therapeutic approach (Ferguson and Gray, 2018). Despite significant efforts in this direction, only a small fraction of the entire kinome has been successfully targeted by FDA-approved kinase blockers so far (Lahiry et al., 2010, Politi et al., 2015). Moreover, once a kinase inhibitor is introduced into clinical use, it often encounters the development of drug resistance mechanisms over time (Longley and Johnston, 2005). Especially in cancer therapy, these facts pose a significant challenge for identifying and applying efficient small molecule-based therapies. Hence, it is crucial to gain more extensive insights into the cellular drug-target engagement, the molecular consequences of kinase patient mutations, and the evolving patterns of drug resistance mechanisms. For both endeavors new technologies are indispensable for identifying, accurately monitoring, and targeting the dysregulated functions of kinases on the cellular level.

Anticipating and unveiling the cellular mechanism of drug actions may help to develop new treatment concepts with the hope of reducing the diminishing of drug efficacies (Chan and Ginsburg, 2011, Goetz and Schork, 2018). The KinCon technology, introduced here, seeks to address the previously mentioned challenges. It has the potential to track kinase functions in living cells effectively, providing assistance in measuring difficult-to-assess processes that may include or go beyond phosphotransferase activities. Overall, it offers an innovative solution for understanding kinase activity conformations, which could pave the way for new intervention strategies for kinase entities that have so far not been addressable for drug screenings. So far, this relates to the tracking of kinase scaffold and pseudokinase functions.

Key advantages of the KinCon reporter technology is the robustness of the system to track kinase conformations at varying expression levels. However, in contrast to fluorescence-based reporter readouts, subcellular analyses and cell sorting are still challenging due to comparably low levels of light emission.

At the beginning of our studies, we underlined the exceptional sensitivity of the KinCon reporter system for tracking kinase activity conformations. We demonstrated that at expression levels far below the endogenous kinase of interest we tracked kinase conformations and their alterations upon drug exposure (Figure 1E–G). Tracking enzyme activities at low expression levels is paramount for understanding the details of cellular functions, as many regulatory and spatiotemporal controlled kinase interactions occur under such settings. Such precise measurements are essential for unraveling and targeting pathological kinases functions.

So far, KinCon reporters have been used to assess different conformational states of kinases which are altered by phosphotransferase-activating patient mutations and/or kinase drug binding (Röck et al., 2019, Mayrhofer et al., 2020, Fleischmann et al., 2021, Fleischmann et al., 2023). Here, we set out to evaluate consequences of inactivating patient mutations on the complex formation emanating from the kinase LKB1. We aimed to broaden the application spectrum of this reporter technology for investigating how regulatory protein interactions influence the tumor suppressor functions of the kinase LKB1 (Partanen et al., 2012). This holds particular implication for inactivated LKB1, as it suggests that activator compounds could potentially counteract its loss-of-function mutations in cancer. In order to screen or test such reactivator molecules, bioluminescence measurements in living cells would be advantageous, since the complex cellular environment needs to be taken into account. In in vitro assays, which mostly focus on kinase domain activities, regulatory protein interactions are neglected. We have confirmed the notion that the formation of the trimeric complex between STRADα-LKB1-MO25 was necessary for signal propagation to AMPK. In line with this, the LKB1 and STRADα KinCon bioluminescence signals increased upon complex formation and vice versa were reduced back to the baseline signal when a complex breaking mutation in the pseudokinase STRADα was introduced (Figure 2G). Further, we showed that tracking structural rearrangements induced by diverse types of mutations can be quantified using KinCon technology (Figure 2I). In this setting KinCon measurements of either the kinase (LKB1) or pseudokinase (STRADα) report trimeric complex formation which is pivotal for cytoplasmic kinase pathway activation (Figure 2E and F). In contrast to MEK1 and BRAF KinCon reporters, the closed STRADα and LKB1 KinCon conformations seem to represent the active kinase state.

In the next step, we expanded the application of the KinCon reporter to RIPK. Examining the molecular mechanisms that regulate RIPK1 activity poses a challenge because of the intricate nature of the pathway. Functioning as a molecular scaffold, RIPK1 orchestrates signal transduction by coordinating multiple kinases participating in the NFκB pathway (Moynagh, 2005, Meylan et al., 2004). Moreover, as a regulator of cell death, RIPK1 forms a substantial amyloid-like signalosome in conjunction with RIPK3 and various other factors (Degterev et al., 2019). We have shown that indeed pathway activation at different levels of the cascade can be tracked. Further, all tested mutations converted RIPK1 to the more opened conformation (Figure 3G and H). Both tested and allosterically acting RIPK1i converted the KinCon reporter back to a more closed conformation (Figures 3J and 5B). This consistent impact on the opened kinase conformation indicates a uniform response in altering the enzymes structural state. We assume that this unexpected drug-driven transition of inactive and active RIPK1 complexes to more closed kinase conformation may have relevance for scaffold functions of RIPK1. Additionally, we hypothesize that it could potentially impact the effectiveness of drug binding.

The proto-oncogenic characteristics of CDK4 and CDK6 depend on expression levels and their interactions with a collection of regulatory proteins (Lin et al., 2001). We applied the KinCon technology for tracking activity states of both kinases. We demonstrated that regulatory CDK4/6 interactions induce conformational changes that remain unaltered when clinically used type I inhibitors bind to them in the tested cell setting (Figure 4F).

In summary, we have extended the KinCon reporter scope of applications. Besides monitoring conformational changes induced by drugs and drug candidates, the reporter system can be applied to accurately track the formation of activated and kinase centered protein complexes. Besides its predictive value in assessing drug effectiveness, the KinCon technology helps consider or identify cellular factors that impact drug candidate binding. KinCon reporters provide unique insights into the molecular dynamics of kinase structure rearrangements. Understanding the molecular motion of kinases as they interact with small molecule inhibitors or regulatory proteins is crucial for designing more effective therapeutic strategies, especially considering that many kinase pathways have so far remained untargeted. The KinCon technology offers a potential avenue to change this.

Data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and the corresponding raw data is freely available as a PDF-File on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12073536).

1. 1. Kugler V
   2. Schwaighofer S
   3. Feichtner A
   4. Enzler F
   5. Fleischmann J
   6. Strich S
   7. Schwarz S
   8. Wilson R
   9. Tschaikner P
   10. Troppmair J
   11. Sexl V
   12. Meier P
   13. Kaserer T
   14. Stefan E

   (2024) Zenodo

   Kinases in motion: impact of protein and small molecule interactions on kinase conformations.

   https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12073536

1. 1. Al Bakir M
   2. Huebner A
   3. Martínez-Ruiz C
   4. Grigoriadis K
   5. Watkins TBK
   6. Pich O
   7. Moore DA
   8. Veeriah S
   9. Ward S
   10. Laycock J
   11. Johnson D
   12. Rowan A
   13. Razaq M
   14. Akther M
   15. Naceur-Lombardelli C
   16. Prymas P
   17. Toncheva A
   18. Hessey S
   19. Dietzen M
   20. Colliver E
   21. Frankell AM
   22. Bunkum A
   23. Lim EL
   24. Karasaki T
   25. Abbosh C
   26. Hiley CT
   27. Hill MS
   28. Cook DE
   29. Wilson GA
   30. Salgado R
   31. Nye E
   32. Stone RK
   33. Fennell DA
   34. Price G
   35. Kerr KM
   36. Naidu B
   37. Middleton G
   38. Summers Y
   39. Lindsay CR
   40. Blackhall FH
   41. Cave J
   42. Blyth KG
   43. Nair A
   44. Ahmed A
   45. Taylor MN
   46. Procter AJ
   47. Falzon M
   48. Lawrence D
   49. Navani N
   50. Thakrar RM
   51. Janes SM
   52. Papadatos-Pastos D
   53. Forster MD
   54. Lee SM
   55. Ahmad T
   56. Quezada SA
   57. Peggs KS
   58. Van Loo P
   59. Dive C
   60. Hackshaw A
   61. Birkbak NJ
   62. Zaccaria S
   63. Jamal-Hanjani M
   64. McGranahan N
   65. Swanton C
   66. TRACERx Consortium

   (2023) The evolution of non-small cell lung cancer metastases in TRACERx

   Nature 616:534–542.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05729-x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Álvarez-Fernández M
   2. Malumbres M

   (2020) Mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance to CDK4/6 inhibition

   Cancer Cell 37:514–529.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.010

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Arter C
   2. Trask L
   3. Ward S
   4. Yeoh S
   5. Bayliss R

   (2022) Structural features of the protein kinase domain and targeted binding by small-molecule inhibitors

   The Journal of Biological Chemistry 298:102247.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2022.102247

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Avruch J
   2. Khokhlatchev A
   3. Kyriakis JM
   4. Luo Z
   5. Tzivion G
   6. Vavvas D
   7. Zhang XF

   (2001) Ras activation of the Raf kinase: tyrosine kinase recruitment of the MAP kinase cascade

   Recent Progress in Hormone Research 56:127–155.

   https://doi.org/10.1210/rp.56.1.127

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Baas AF
   2. Boudeau J
   3. Sapkota GP
   4. Smit L
   5. Medema R
   6. Morrice NA
   7. Alessi DR
   8. Clevers HC

   (2003) Activation of the tumour suppressor kinase LKB1 by the STE20-like pseudokinase STRAD

   The EMBO Journal 22:3062–3072.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg292

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Beggs AD
   2. Latchford AR
   3. Vasen HFA
   4. Moslein G
   5. Alonso A
   6. Aretz S
   7. Bertario L
   8. Blanco I
   9. Bülow S
   10. Burn J
   11. Capella G
   12. Colas C
   13. Friedl W
   14. Møller P
   15. Hes FJ
   16. Järvinen H
   17. Mecklin J-P
   18. Nagengast FM
   19. Parc Y
   20. Phillips RKS
   21. Hyer W
   22. Ponz de Leon M
   23. Renkonen-Sinisalo L
   24. Sampson JR
   25. Stormorken A
   26. Tejpar S
   27. Thomas HJW
   28. Wijnen JT
   29. Clark SK
   30. Hodgson SV

   (2010) Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a systematic review and recommendations for management

   Gut 59:975–986.

   https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.198499

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Berginski ME
   2. Moret N
   3. Liu C
   4. Goldfarb D
   5. Sorger PK
   6. Gomez SM

   (2021) The dark kinase knowledgebase: an online compendium of knowledge and experimental results of understudied kinases

   Nucleic Acids Research 49:D529–D535.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaa853

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bhullar KS
   2. Lagarón NO
   3. McGowan EM
   4. Parmar I
   5. Jha A
   6. Hubbard BP
   7. Rupasinghe HPV

   (2018) Kinase-targeted cancer therapies: progress, challenges and future directions

   Molecular Cancer 17:48.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-018-0804-2

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Blume-Jensen P
   2. Hunter T

   (2001) Oncogenic kinase signalling

   Nature 411:355–365.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35077225

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bolger GB

    (2022) The cAMP-signaling cancers: clinically-divergent disorders with a common central pathway

    Frontiers in Endocrinology 13:1024423.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.1024423

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Boudeau J
    2. Baas AF
    3. Deak M
    4. Morrice NA
    5. Kieloch A
    6. Schutkowski M
    7. Prescott AR
    8. Clevers HC
    9. Alessi DR

    (2003) MO25alpha/beta interact with STRADalpha/beta enhancing their ability to bind, activate and localize LKB1 in the cytoplasm

    The EMBO Journal 22:5102–5114.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg490

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Boudeau J
    2. Scott JW
    3. Resta N
    4. Deak M
    5. Kieloch A
    6. Komander D
    7. Hardie DG
    8. Prescott AR
    9. van Aalten DMF
    10. Alessi DR

    (2004) Analysis of the LKB1-STRAD-MO25 complex

    Journal of Cell Science 117:6365–6375.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.01571

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Boudeau J
    2. Miranda-Saavedra D
    3. Barton GJ
    4. Alessi DR

    (2006) Emerging roles of pseudokinases

    Trends in Cell Biology 16:443–452.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2006.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Capra M
    2. Nuciforo PG
    3. Confalonieri S
    4. Quarto M
    5. Bianchi M
    6. Nebuloni M
    7. Boldorini R
    8. Pallotti F
    9. Viale G
    10. Gishizky ML
    11. Draetta GF
    12. Di Fiore PP

    (2006) Frequent alterations in the expression of serine/threonine kinases in human cancers

    Cancer Research 66:8147–8154.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3489

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chan IS
    2. Ginsburg GS

    (2011) Personalized medicine: progress and promise

    Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 12:217–244.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-082410-101446

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Chen CY
    2. Georgiev I
    3. Anderson AC
    4. Donald BR

    (2009) Computational structure-based redesign of enzyme activity

    PNAS 106:3764–3769.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900266106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Cho Y
    2. McQuade T
    3. Zhang H
    4. Zhang J
    5. Chan FKM

    (2011) RIP1-dependent and independent effects of necrostatin-1 in necrosis and T cell activation

    PLOS ONE 6:e23209.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023209

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Choi YJ
    2. Li X
    3. Hydbring P
    4. Sanda T
    5. Stefano J
    6. Christie AL
    7. Signoretti S
    8. Look AT
    9. Kung AL
    10. von Boehmer H
    11. Sicinski P

    (2012) The requirement for cyclin D function in tumor maintenance

    Cancer Cell 22:438–451.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.09.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Chou KC

    (2020) Progresses in predicting post-translational modification

    International Journal of Peptide Research and Therapeutics 26:873–888.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10989-019-09893-5

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Christofferson DE
    2. Li Y
    3. Hitomi J
    4. Zhou W
    5. Upperman C
    6. Zhu H
    7. Gerber SA
    8. Gygi S
    9. Yuan J

    (2012) A novel role for RIP1 kinase in mediating TNFα production

    Cell Death & Disease 3:e320.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2012.64

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Cicenas J
    2. Zalyte E
    3. Bairoch A
    4. Gaudet P

    (2018) Kinases and cancer

    Cancers 10:63.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers10030063

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Clucas J
    2. Meier P

    (2023) Roles of RIPK1 as a stress sentinel coordinating cell survival and immunogenic cell death

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 24:835–852.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-023-00623-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Cohen P

    (2000) The regulation of protein function by multisite phosphorylation--a 25 year update

    Trends in Biochemical Sciences 25:596–601.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0004(00)01712-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Croce L
    2. Coperchini F
    3. Magri F
    4. Chiovato L
    5. Rotondi M

    (2019) The multifaceted anti-cancer effects of BRAF-inhibitors

    Oncotarget 10:6623–6640.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.27304

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Davies H
    2. Bignell GR
    3. Cox C
    4. Stephens P
    5. Edkins S
    6. Clegg S
    7. Teague J
    8. Woffendin H
    9. Garnett MJ
    10. Bottomley W
    11. Davis N
    12. Dicks E
    13. Ewing R
    14. Floyd Y
    15. Gray K
    16. Hall S
    17. Hawes R
    18. Hughes J
    19. Kosmidou V
    20. Menzies A
    21. Mould C
    22. Parker A
    23. Stevens C
    24. Watt S
    25. Hooper S
    26. Wilson R
    27. Jayatilake H
    28. Gusterson BA
    29. Cooper C
    30. Shipley J
    31. Hargrave D
    32. Pritchard-Jones K
    33. Maitland N
    34. Chenevix-Trench G
    35. Riggins GJ
    36. Bigner DD
    37. Palmieri G
    38. Cossu A
    39. Flanagan A
    40. Nicholson A
    41. Ho JWC
    42. Leung SY
    43. Yuen ST
    44. Weber BL
    45. Seigler HF
    46. Darrow TL
    47. Paterson H
    48. Marais R
    49. Marshall CJ
    50. Wooster R
    51. Stratton MR
    52. Futreal PA

    (2002) Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer

    Nature 417:949–954.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature00766

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Degterev A
    2. Ofengeim D
    3. Yuan J

    (2019) Targeting RIPK1 for the treatment of human diseases

    PNAS 116:9714–9722.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901179116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Deribe YL
    2. Pawson T
    3. Dikic I

    (2010) Post-translational modifications in signal integration

    Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 17:666–672.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1842

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Dondelinger Y
    2. Delanghe T
    3. Priem D
    4. Wynosky-Dolfi MA
    5. Sorobetea D
    6. Rojas-Rivera D
    7. Giansanti P
    8. Roelandt R
    9. Gropengiesser J
    10. Ruckdeschel K
    11. Savvides SN
    12. Heck AJR
    13. Vandenabeele P
    14. Brodsky IE
    15. Bertrand MJM

    (2019) Serine 25 phosphorylation inhibits RIPK1 kinase-dependent cell death in models of infection and inflammation

    Nature Communications 10:1729.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09690-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Eferl R
    2. Wagner EF

    (2003) AP-1: a double-edged sword in tumorigenesis

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 3:859–868.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1209

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Enzler F
    2. Tschaikner P
    3. Schneider R
    4. Stefan E

    (2020) KinCon: cell-based recording of full-length kinase conformations

    IUBMB Life 72:1168–1174.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/iub.2241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Fabbro D
    2. Cowan-Jacob SW
    3. Moebitz H

    (2015) Ten things you should know about protein kinases: IUPHAR Review 14

    British Journal of Pharmacology 172:2675–2700.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.13096

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Fassl A
    2. Geng Y
    3. Sicinski P

    (2022) CDK4 and CDK6 kinases: from basic science to cancer therapy

    Science 375:eabc1495.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1495

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Feichtner A
    2. Kugler V
    3. Schwaighofer S
    4. Nuener T
    5. Fleischmann J
    6. Stefan E

    (2022) Tracking mutation and drug-driven alterations of oncokinase conformations

    Memo 15:137–142.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12254-021-00790-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Ferguson FM
    2. Gray NS

    (2018) Kinase inhibitors: the road ahead

    Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 17:353–377.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.21

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Festjens N
    2. Vanden Berghe T
    3. Cornelis S
    4. Vandenabeele P

    (2007) RIP1, a kinase on the crossroads of a cell’s decision to live or die

    Cell Death & Differentiation 14:400–410.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4402085

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Fleischmann J
    2. Feichtner A
    3. DeFalco L
    4. Kugler V
    5. Schwaighofer S
    6. Huber RG
    7. Stefan E

    (2021) Allosteric kinase inhibitors reshape MEK1 kinase activity conformations in cells and in silico

    Biomolecules 11:518.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11040518

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Fleischmann J
    2. Schwaighofer S
    3. De Falco L
    4. Enzler F
    5. Feichtner A
    6. Kugler V
    7. Tschaikner P
    8. Huber RG
    9. Stefan E

    (2023) Tracking and blocking interdependencies of cellular BRAF-MEK oncokinase activities

    PNAS Nexus 2:gad185.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad185

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Gainza P
    2. Roberts KE
    3. Georgiev I
    4. Lilien RH
    5. Keedy DA
    6. Chen C-Y
    7. Reza F
    8. Anderson AC
    9. Richardson DC
    10. Richardson JS
    11. Donald BR

    (2013) OSPREY: protein design with ensembles, flexibility, and provable algorithms

    Methods in Enzymology 523:87–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394292-0.00005-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Giacinti C
    2. Giordano A

    (2006) RB and cell cycle progression

    Oncogene 25:5220–5227.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209615

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Goel S
    2. DeCristo MJ
    3. McAllister SS
    4. Zhao JJ

    (2018) CDK4/6 inhibition in cancer: beyond cell cycle arrest

    Trends in Cell Biology 28:911–925.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2018.07.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Goetz LH
    2. Schork NJ

    (2018) Personalized medicine: motivation, challenges, and progress

    Fertility and Sterility 109:952–963.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.05.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Guo YJ
    2. Pan WW
    3. Liu SB
    4. Shen ZF
    5. Xu Y
    6. Hu LL

    (2020) ERK/MAPK signalling pathway and tumorigenesis

    Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 19:1997–2007.

    https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2020.8454

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Huse M
    2. Kuriyan J

    (2002) The conformational plasticity of protein kinases

    Cell 109:275–282.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00741-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Islam MJ
    2. Khan AM
    3. Parves MR
    4. Hossain MN
    5. Halim MA

    (2019) Prediction of deleterious non-synonymous SNPs of Human STK11 gene by combining algorithms, molecular docking, and molecular dynamics simulation

    Scientific Reports 9:16426.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-52308-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Jaco I
    2. Annibaldi A
    3. Lalaoui N
    4. Wilson R
    5. Tenev T
    6. Laurien L
    7. Kim C
    8. Jamal K
    9. Wicky John S
    10. Liccardi G
    11. Chau D
    12. Murphy JM
    13. Brumatti G
    14. Feltham R
    15. Pasparakis M
    16. Silke J
    17. Meier P

    (2017) MK2 phosphorylates RIPK1 to prevent TNF-induced cell death

    Molecular Cell 66:698–710.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2017.05.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. James MK
    2. Ray A
    3. Leznova D
    4. Blain SW

    (2008) Differential modification of p27Kip1 controls its cyclin D-cdk4 inhibitory activity

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 28:498–510.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.02171-06

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Karoulia Z
    2. Gavathiotis E
    3. Poulikakos PI

    (2017) New perspectives for targeting RAF kinase in human cancer

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 17:676–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2017.79

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Kasai H
    2. Petersen OH

    (1994) Spatial dynamics of second messengers: IP3 and cAMP as long-range and associative messengers

    Trends in Neurosciences 17:95–101.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-2236(94)90112-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Kaserer T
    2. Blagg J

    (2018) Combining mutational signatures, clonal fitness, and drug affinity to define drug-specific resistance mutations in cancer

    Cell Chemical Biology 25:1359–1371.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chembiol.2018.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Kemp BE
    2. Parker MW
    3. Hu S
    4. Tiganis T
    5. House C

    (1994) Substrate and pseudosubstrate interactions with protein kinases: determinants of specificity

    Trends in Biochemical Sciences 19:440–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0968-0004(94)90126-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Kitajima S
    2. Ivanova E
    3. Guo S
    4. Yoshida R
    5. Campisi M
    6. Sundararaman SK
    7. Tange S
    8. Mitsuishi Y
    9. Thai TC
    10. Masuda S
    11. Piel BP
    12. Sholl LM
    13. Kirschmeier PT
    14. Paweletz CP
    15. Watanabe H
    16. Yajima M
    17. Barbie DA

    (2019) Suppression of STING associated with LKB1 Loss in KRAS-driven lung cancer

    Cancer Discovery 9:34–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0689

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Klaeger S
    2. Heinzlmeir S
    3. Wilhelm M
    4. Polzer H
    5. Vick B
    6. Koenig PA
    7. Reinecke M
    8. Ruprecht B
    9. Petzoldt S
    10. Meng C
    11. Zecha J
    12. Reiter K
    13. Qiao H
    14. Helm D
    15. Koch H
    16. Schoof M
    17. Canevari G
    18. Casale E
    19. Depaolini SR
    20. Feuchtinger A
    21. Wu Z
    22. Schmidt T
    23. Rueckert L
    24. Becker W
    25. Huenges J
    26. Garz AK
    27. Gohlke BO
    28. Zolg DP
    29. Kayser G
    30. Vooder T
    31. Preissner R
    32. Hahne H
    33. Tõnisson N
    34. Kramer K
    35. Götze K
    36. Bassermann F
    37. Schlegl J
    38. Ehrlich HC
    39. Aiche S
    40. Walch A
    41. Greif PA
    42. Schneider S
    43. Felder ER
    44. Ruland J
    45. Médard G
    46. Jeremias I
    47. Spiekermann K
    48. Kuster B

    (2017) The target landscape of clinical kinase drugs

    Science 358:aan4368.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan4368

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Knudsen ES
    2. Witkiewicz AK

    (2017) The Strange Case of CDK4/6 Inhibitors: mechanisms, resistance, and combination strategies

    Trends in Cancer 3:39–55.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2016.11.006

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Kollmann K
    2. Heller G
    3. Schneckenleithner C
    4. Warsch W
    5. Scheicher R
    6. Ott RG
    7. Schäfer M
    8. Fajmann S
    9. Schlederer M
    10. Schiefer A-I
    11. Reichart U
    12. Mayerhofer M
    13. Hoeller C
    14. Zöchbauer-Müller S
    15. Kerjaschki D
    16. Bock C
    17. Kenner L
    18. Hoefler G
    19. Freissmuth M
    20. Green AR
    21. Moriggl R
    22. Busslinger M
    23. Malumbres M
    24. Sexl V

    (2013) A kinase-independent function of CDK6 links the cell cycle to tumor angiogenesis

    Cancer Cell 24:167–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2013.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Kollmann K
    2. Sexl V

    (2013) CDK6 and p16INK4A in lymphoid malignancies

    Oncotarget 4:1858–1859.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.1541

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Kornev AP
    2. Taylor SS

    (2010) Defining the conserved internal architecture of a protein kinase

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1804:440–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2009.10.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. Book

    1. Köstler WJ
    2. Zielinski CC

    (2015) Targeting receptor tyrosine kinases in cancer

    In: Wheeler D, Yarden Y, editors. Receptor Tyrosine Kinases: Structure, Functions and Role in Human Disease. Springer. pp. 225–278.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2053-2_10

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Kung JE
    2. Jura N

    (2019) Prospects for pharmacological targeting of pseudokinases

    Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 18:501–526.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-019-0018-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Lahiry P
    2. Torkamani A
    3. Schork NJ
    4. Hegele RA

    (2010) Kinase mutations in human disease: interpreting genotype-phenotype relationships

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 11:60–74.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2707

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Lalaoui N
    2. Boyden SE
    3. Oda H
    4. Wood GM
    5. Stone DL
    6. Chau D
    7. Liu L
    8. Stoffels M
    9. Kratina T
    10. Lawlor KE
    11. Zaal KJM
    12. Hoffmann PM
    13. Etemadi N
    14. Shield-Artin K
    15. Biben C
    16. Tsai WL
    17. Blake MD
    18. Kuehn HS
    19. Yang D
    20. Anderton H
    21. Silke N
    22. Wachsmuth L
    23. Zheng L
    24. Moura NS
    25. Beck DB
    26. Gutierrez-Cruz G
    27. Ombrello AK
    28. Pinto-Patarroyo GP
    29. Kueh AJ
    30. Herold MJ
    31. Hall C
    32. Wang H
    33. Chae JJ
    34. Dmitrieva NI
    35. McKenzie M
    36. Light A
    37. Barham BK
    38. Jones A
    39. Romeo TM
    40. Zhou Q
    41. Aksentijevich I
    42. Mullikin JC
    43. Gross AJ
    44. Shum AK
    45. Hawkins ED
    46. Masters SL
    47. Lenardo MJ
    48. Boehm M
    49. Rosenzweig SD
    50. Pasparakis M
    51. Voss AK
    52. Gadina M
    53. Kastner DL
    54. Silke J

    (2020) Mutations that prevent caspase cleavage of RIPK1 cause autoinflammatory disease

    Nature 577:103–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1828-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Launonen V

    (2005) Mutations in the human LKB1/STK11 gene

    Human Mutation 26:291–297.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20222

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Laurien L
    2. Nagata M
    3. Schünke H
    4. Delanghe T
    5. Wiederstein JL
    6. Kumari S
    7. Schwarzer R
    8. Corona T
    9. Krüger M
    10. Bertrand MJM
    11. Kondylis V
    12. Pasparakis M

    (2020) Autophosphorylation at serine 166 regulates RIP kinase 1-mediated cell death and inflammation

    Nature Communications 11:1747.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15466-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Lavoie H
    2. Gagnon J
    3. Therrien M

    (2020) ERK signalling: a master regulator of cell behaviour, life and fate

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 21:607–632.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-020-0255-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Li W
    2. Li B
    3. Giacalone NJ
    4. Torossian A
    5. Sun Y
    6. Niu K
    7. Lin-Tsai O
    8. Lu B

    (2011) BV6, an IAP antagonist, activates apoptosis and enhances radiosensitization of non-small cell lung carcinoma in vitro

    Journal of Thoracic Oncology 6:1801–1809.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318226b4a6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Li Y
    2. Führer M
    3. Bahrami E
    4. Socha P
    5. Klaudel-Dreszler M
    6. Bouzidi A
    7. Liu Y
    8. Lehle AS
    9. Magg T
    10. Hollizeck S
    11. Rohlfs M
    12. Conca R
    13. Field M
    14. Warner N
    15. Mordechai S
    16. Shteyer E
    17. Turner D
    18. Boukari R
    19. Belbouab R
    20. Walz C
    21. Gaidt MM
    22. Hornung V
    23. Baumann B
    24. Pannicke U
    25. Al Idrissi E
    26. Ali Alghamdi H
    27. Sepulveda FE
    28. Gil M
    29. de Saint Basile G
    30. Hönig M
    31. Koletzko S
    32. Muise AM
    33. Snapper SB
    34. Schwarz K
    35. Klein C
    36. Kotlarz D

    (2019) Human RIPK1 deficiency causes combined immunodeficiency and inflammatory bowel diseases

    PNAS 116:970–975.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1813582116

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Liggett WH Jr
    2. Sidransky D

    (1998) Role of the p16 tumor suppressor gene in cancer

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 16:1197–1206.

    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.3.1197

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Lin J
    2. Jinno S
    3. Okayama H

    (2001) Cdk6-cyclin D3 complex evades inhibition by inhibitor proteins and uniquely controls cell’s proliferation competence

    Oncogene 20:2000–2009.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1204375

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Lito P
    2. Rosen N
    3. Solit DB

    (2013) Tumor adaptation and resistance to RAF inhibitors

    Nature Medicine 19:1401–1409.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3392

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Longley DB
    2. Johnston PG

    (2005) Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance

    The Journal of Pathology 205:275–292.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1706

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Lopez ED
    2. Burastero O
    3. Arcon JP
    4. Defelipe LA
    5. Ahn NG
    6. Marti MA
    7. Turjanski AG

    (2020) Kinase activation by small conformational changes

    Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 60:821–832.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00782

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Madhavi Sastry G
    2. Adzhigirey M
    3. Day T
    4. Annabhimoju R
    5. Sherman W

    (2013) Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments

    Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design 27:221–234.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-013-9644-8

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Manning G
    2. Whyte DB
    3. Martinez R
    4. Hunter T
    5. Sudarsanam S

    (2002) The protein kinase complement of the human genome

    Science 298:1912–1934.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1075762

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Manning BD

    (2009) Challenges and opportunities in defining the essential cancer kinome

    Science Signaling 2:pe15.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.263pe15

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Martens S
    2. Hofmans S
    3. Declercq W
    4. Augustyns K
    5. Vandenabeele P

    (2020) Inhibitors targeting RIPK1/RIPK3: old and new drugs

    Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 41:209–224.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2020.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Mayrhofer JE
    2. Enzler F
    3. Feichtner A
    4. Röck R
    5. Fleischmann J
    6. Raffeiner A
    7. Tschaikner P
    8. Ogris E
    9. Huber RG
    10. Hartl M
    11. Schneider R
    12. Troppmair J
    13. Torres-Quesada O
    14. Stefan E

    (2020) Mutation-oriented profiling of autoinhibitory kinase conformations predicts RAF inhibitor efficacies

    PNAS 117:31105–31113.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2012150117

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Meharena HS
    2. Fan X
    3. Ahuja LG
    4. Keshwani MM
    5. McClendon CL
    6. Chen AM
    7. Adams JA
    8. Taylor SS

    (2016) Decoding the interactions regulating the active state mechanics of eukaryotic protein kinases

    PLOS Biology 14:e2000127.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000127

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Mehenni H
    2. Gehrig C
    3. Nezu J
    4. Oku A
    5. Shimane M
    6. Rossier C
    7. Guex N
    8. Blouin JL
    9. Scott HS
    10. Antonarakis SE

    (1998) Loss of LKB1 kinase activity in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and evidence for allelic and locus heterogeneity

    American Journal of Human Genetics 63:1641–1650.

    https://doi.org/10.1086/302159

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Meylan E
    2. Burns K
    3. Hofmann K
    4. Blancheteau V
    5. Martinon F
    6. Kelliher M
    7. Tschopp J

    (2004) RIP1 is an essential mediator of Toll-like receptor 3-induced NF-kappa B activation

    Nature Immunology 5:503–507.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Molaei A
    2. Molaei E
    3. Sadeghnia H
    4. Hayes AW
    5. Karimi G

    (2022) LKB1: An emerging therapeutic target for cardiovascular diseases

    Life Sciences 306:120844.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2022.120844

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Morrison DK

    (2001) KSR: a MAPK scaffold of the ras pathway?

    Journal of Cell Science 114:1609–1612.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.114.9.1609

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Morrison DK
    2. Davis RJ

    (2003) Regulation of MAP kinase signaling modules by scaffold proteins in mammals

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 19:91–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.19.111401.091942

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Moynagh PN

    (2005) The NF-κB pathway

    Journal of Cell Science 118:4589–4592.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.02579

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Narbonne P
    2. Hyenne V
    3. Li S
    4. Labbé JC
    5. Roy R

    (2010) Differential requirements for STRAD in LKB1-dependent functions in C. elegans

    Development 137:661–670.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.042044

    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Ndembe G
    2. Intini I
    3. Perin E
    4. Marabese M
    5. Caiola E
    6. Mendogni P
    7. Rosso L
    8. Broggini M
    9. Colombo M

    (2022) LKB1: can we target an hidden target? focus on NSCLC

    Frontiers in Oncology 12:889826.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.889826

    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Nebenfuehr S
    2. Kollmann K
    3. Sexl V

    (2020) The role of CDK6 in cancer

    International Journal of Cancer 147:2988–2995.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Newton AC

    (2001) Protein kinase C: structural and spatial regulation by phosphorylation, cofactors, and macromolecular interactions

    Chemical Reviews 101:2353–2364.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/cr0002801

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Newton AC
    2. Bootman MD
    3. Scott JD

    (2016) Second messengers

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 8:a005926.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a005926

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Ochoa D
    2. Bradley D
    3. Beltrao P

    (2018) Evolution, dynamics and dysregulation of kinase signalling

    Current Opinion in Structural Biology 48:133–140.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2017.12.008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Ortega S
    2. Malumbres M
    3. Barbacid M

    (2002) Cyclin D-dependent kinases, INK4 inhibitors and cancer

    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1602:73–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-419X(02)00037-9

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Otto T
    2. Sicinski P

    (2017) Cell cycle proteins as promising targets in cancer therapy

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 17:93–115.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2016.138

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Pan X
    2. Heitman J

    (2002) Protein kinase A operates A molecular switch that governs yeast pseudohyphal differentiation

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 22:3981–3993.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.12.3981-3993.2002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Partanen JI
    2. Tervonen TA
    3. Myllynen M
    4. Lind E
    5. Imai M
    6. Katajisto P
    7. Dijkgraaf GJP
    8. Kovanen PE
    9. Mäkelä TP
    10. Werb Z
    11. Klefström J

    (2012) Tumor suppressor function of Liver kinase B1 (Lkb1) is linked to regulation of epithelial integrity

    PNAS 109:E388–E397.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1120421109

    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Pellegrini E
    2. Signor L
    3. Singh S
    4. Boeri Erba E
    5. Cusack S

    (2017) Structures of the inactive and active states of RIP2 kinase inform on the mechanism of activation

    PLOS ONE 12:e0177161.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177161

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Politi K
    2. Ayeni D
    3. Lynch T

    (2015) The next wave of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors enter the clinic

    Cancer Cell 27:751–753.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2015.05.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Pouysségur J
    2. Volmat V
    3. Lenormand P

    (2002) Fidelity and spatio-temporal control in MAP kinase (ERKs) signalling

    Biochemical Pharmacology 64:755–763.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-2952(02)01135-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Pufall MA
    2. Graves BJ

    (2002) Autoinhibitory domains: modular effectors of cellular regulation

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 18:421–462.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.18.031502.133614

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Puylaert P
    2. Coornaert I
    3. Neutel CHG
    4. Dondelinger Y
    5. Delanghe T
    6. Bertrand MJM
    7. Guns PJ
    8. De Meyer GRY
    9. Martinet W

    (2022) The Impact of RIPK1 kinase inhibition on atherogenesis: a genetic and a pharmacological approach

    Biomedicines 10:1016.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10051016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Qing T
    2. Liu J
    3. Liu F
    4. Mitchell DC
    5. Beresis RT
    6. Gordan JD

    (2022) Methods to assess small molecule allosteric modulators of the STRAD pseudokinase

    Methods in Enzymology 667:427–453.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mie.2022.03.041

    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Quelle DE
    2. Cheng M
    3. Ashmun RA
    4. Sherr CJ

    (1997) Cancer-associated mutations at the INK4a locus cancel cell cycle arrest by p16INK4a but not by the alternative reading frame protein p19ARF

    PNAS 94:669–673.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.2.669

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Rajakulendran T
     2. Sicheri F

     (2010) Allosteric protein kinase regulation by pseudokinases: insights from STRAD

     Science Signaling 3:pe8.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.3111pe8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Raju S
     2. Whalen DM
     3. Mengistu M
     4. Swanson C
     5. Quinn JG
     6. Taylor SS
     7. Webster JD
     8. Newton K
     9. Shaw AS

     (2018) Kinase domain dimerization drives RIPK3-dependent necroptosis

     Science Signaling 11:aar2188.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.aar2188

     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Ramms DJ
     2. Raimondi F
     3. Arang N
     4. Herberg FW
     5. Taylor SS
     6. Gutkind JS

     (2021) Gαs-Protein Kinase A (PKA) Pathway Signalopathies: the emerging genetic landscape and therapeutic potential of human diseases driven by Aberrant Gαs-PKA Signaling

     Pharmacological Reviews 73:155–197.

     https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.120.000269

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Reiterer V
     2. Eyers PA
     3. Farhan H

     (2014) Day of the dead: pseudokinases and pseudophosphatases in physiology and disease

     Trends in Cell Biology 24:489–505.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2014.03.008

     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Röck R
     2. Mayrhofer JE
     3. Torres-Quesada O
     4. Enzler F
     5. Raffeiner A
     6. Raffeiner P
     7. Feichtner A
     8. Huber RG
     9. Koide S
     10. Taylor SS
     11. Troppmair J
     12. Stefan E

     (2019) BRAF inhibitors promote intermediate BRAF(V600E) conformations and binary interactions with activated RAS

     Science Advances 5:eaav8463.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav8463

     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Rodríguez C
     2. Muñoz M
     3. Contreras C
     4. Prieto D

     (2021) AMPK, metabolism, and vascular function

     The FEBS Journal 288:3746–3771.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15863

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Rodríguez-Díez E
     2. Quereda V
     3. Bellutti F
     4. Prchal-Murphy M
     5. Partida D
     6. Eguren M
     7. Kollmann K
     8. Gómez de Cedrón M
     9. Dubus P
     10. Cañamero M
     11. Martínez D
     12. Sexl V
     13. Malumbres M

     (2014) Cdk4 and Cdk6 cooperate in counteracting the INK4 family of inhibitors during murine leukemogenesis

     Blood 124:2380–2390.

     https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-02-555292

     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Romagosa C
     2. Simonetti S
     3. López-Vicente L
     4. Mazo A
     5. Lleonart ME
     6. Castellvi J
     7. Ramon y Cajal S

     (2011) p16Ink4a overexpression in cancer: a tumor suppressor gene associated with senescence and high-grade tumors

     Oncogene 30:2087–2097.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.614

     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Russo AA
     2. Tong L
     3. Lee J-O
     4. Jeffrey PD
     5. Pavletich NP

     (1998) Structural basis for inhibition of the cyclin-dependent kinase Cdk6 by the tumour suppressor p16INK4a

     Nature 395:237–243.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/26155

     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Sanchez-Cespedes M

     (2007) A role for LKB1 gene in human cancer beyond the Peutz–Jeghers syndrome

     Oncogene 26:7825–7832.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1210594

     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Scheiblecker L
     2. Kollmann K
     3. Sexl V

     (2020) CDK4/6 and MAPK-crosstalk as opportunity for cancer treatment

     Pharmaceuticals 13:418.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/ph13120418

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Scheicher R
     2. Hoelbl-Kovacic A
     3. Bellutti F
     4. Tigan A-S
     5. Prchal-Murphy M
     6. Heller G
     7. Schneckenleithner C
     8. Salazar-Roa M
     9. Zöchbauer-Müller S
     10. Zuber J
     11. Malumbres M
     12. Kollmann K
     13. Sexl V

     (2015) CDK6 as a key regulator of hematopoietic and leukemic stem cell activation

     Blood 125:90–101.

     https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2014-06-584417

     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Schmitt DL
     2. Mehta S
     3. Zhang J

     (2022) Study of spatiotemporal regulation of kinase signaling using genetically encodable molecular tools

     Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 71:102224.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2022.102224

     • Google Scholar
113. Book

     1. Schrödinger L

     (2019)

     Schrödinger release 2019-4: protein preparation wizard; epik; impact; prime; glide; ligprep; induced fit docking protocol

     Schrödinger.

     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Semczuk A
     2. Jakowicki JA

     (2004) Alterations of pRb1-cyclin D1-cdk4/6-p16INK4A pathway in endometrial carcinogenesis

     Cancer Letters 203:1–12.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2003.09.012

     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Shackelford DB
     2. Shaw RJ

     (2009) The LKB1-AMPK pathway: metabolism and growth control in tumour suppression

     Nature Reviews. Cancer 9:563–575.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2676

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Shchemelinin I
     2. Sefc L
     3. Necas E

     (2006)

     Protein kinases, their function and implication in cancer and other diseases

     Folia Biologica 52:81–100.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Shrestha S
     2. Byrne DP
     3. Harris JA
     4. Kannan N
     5. Eyers PA

     (2020) Cataloguing the dead: breathing new life into pseudokinase research

     The FEBS Journal 287:4150–4169.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.15246

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Shutinoski B
     2. Alturki NA
     3. Rijal D
     4. Bertin J
     5. Gough PJ
     6. Schlossmacher MG
     7. Sad S

     (2016) K45A mutation of RIPK1 results in poor necroptosis and cytokine signaling in macrophages, which impacts inflammatory responses in vivo

     Cell Death & Differentiation 23:1628–1637.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2016.51

     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Silke J
     2. Meier P

     (2013) Inhibitor of apoptosis (IAP) proteins-modulators of cell death and inflammation

     Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 5:a008730.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a008730

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Southekal S
     2. Mishra NK
     3. Guda C

     (2021) Pan-cancer analysis of human kinome gene expression and promoter DNA methylation identifies dark kinase biomarkers in multiple cancers

     Cancers 13:1189.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13061189

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Speir M
     2. Djajawi TM
     3. Conos SA
     4. Tye H
     5. Lawlor KE

     (2021) Targeting RIP kinases in chronic inflammatory disease

     Biomolecules 11:646.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/biom11050646

     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Stefan E
     2. Aquin S
     3. Berger N
     4. Landry CR
     5. Nyfeler B
     6. Bouvier M
     7. Michnick SW

     (2007) Quantification of dynamic protein complexes using Renillaluciferase fragment complementation applied to protein kinase A activitiesin vivo

     PNAS 104:16916–16921.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704257104

     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Tao P
     2. Sun J
     3. Wu Z
     4. Wang S
     5. Wang J
     6. Li W
     7. Pan H
     8. Bai R
     9. Zhang J
     10. Wang Y
     11. Lee PY
     12. Ying W
     13. Zhou Q
     14. Hou J
     15. Wang W
     16. Sun B
     17. Yang M
     18. Liu D
     19. Fang R
     20. Han H
     21. Yang Z
     22. Huang X
     23. Li H
     24. Deuitch N
     25. Zhang Y
     26. Dissanayake D
     27. Haude K
     28. McWalter K
     29. Roadhouse C
     30. MacKenzie JJ
     31. Laxer RM
     32. Aksentijevich I
     33. Yu X
     34. Wang X
     35. Yuan J
     36. Zhou Q

     (2020) A dominant autoinflammatory disease caused by non-cleavable variants of RIPK1

     Nature 577:109–114.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1830-y

     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Taylor SS
     2. Kim C
     3. Vigil D
     4. Haste NM
     5. Yang J
     6. Wu J
     7. Anand GS

     (2005) Dynamics of signaling by PKA

     Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1754:25–37.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2005.08.024

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Taylor SS
     2. Ilouz R
     3. Zhang P
     4. Kornev AP

     (2012) Assembly of allosteric macromolecular switches: lessons from PKA

     Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 13:646–658.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3432

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Taylor SS
     2. Zhang P
     3. Steichen JM
     4. Keshwani MM
     5. Kornev AP

     (2013) PKA: lessons learned after twenty years

     Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1834:1271–1278.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbapap.2013.03.007

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Taylor SS
     2. Wu J
     3. Bruystens JGH
     4. Del Rio JC
     5. Lu TW
     6. Kornev AP
     7. Ten Eyck LF

     (2021) From structure to the dynamic regulation of A molecular switch: a journey over 3decades

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 296:100746.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100746

     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Ui A
     2. Ogiwara H
     3. Nakajima S
     4. Kanno S
     5. Watanabe R
     6. Harata M
     7. Okayama H
     8. Harris CC
     9. Yokota J
     10. Yasui A
     11. Kohno T

     (2014) Possible involvement of LKB1-AMPK signaling in non-homologous end joining

     Oncogene 33:1640–1648.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2013.125

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Van AAN
     2. Kunkel MT
     3. Baffi TR
     4. Lordén G
     5. Antal CE
     6. Banerjee S
     7. Newton AC

     (2021) Protein kinase C fusion proteins are paradoxically loss of function in cancer

     The Journal of Biological Chemistry 296:100445.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100445

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. VanArsdale T
     2. Boshoff C
     3. Arndt KT
     4. Abraham RT

     (2015) Molecular pathways: targeting the cyclin D–CDK4/6 axis for cancer treatment

     Clinical Cancer Research 21:2905–2910.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0816

     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Wang W
     2. Marinis JM
     3. Beal AM
     4. Savadkar S
     5. Wu Y
     6. Khan M
     7. Taunk PS
     8. Wu N
     9. Su W
     10. Wu J
     11. Ahsan A
     12. Kurz E
     13. Chen T
     14. Yaboh I
     15. Li F
     16. Gutierrez J
     17. Diskin B
     18. Hundeyin M
     19. Reilly M
     20. Lich JD
     21. Harris PA
     22. Mahajan MK
     23. Thorpe JH
     24. Nassau P
     25. Mosley JE
     26. Leinwand J
     27. Kochen Rossi JA
     28. Mishra A
     29. Aykut B
     30. Glacken M
     31. Ochi A
     32. Verma N
     33. Kim JI
     34. Vasudevaraja V
     35. Adeegbe D
     36. Almonte C
     37. Bagdatlioglu E
     38. Cohen DJ
     39. Wong KK
     40. Bertin J
     41. Miller G

     (2018) RIP1 kinase drives macrophage-mediated adaptive immune tolerance in pancreatic cancer

     Cancer Cell 34:757–774.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.10.006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Wang Q
     2. Fan D
     3. Xia Y
     4. Ye Q
     5. Xi X
     6. Zhang G
     7. Xiao C

     (2021) The latest information on the RIPK1 post-translational modifications and functions

     Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 142:112082.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112082

     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Weinlich R
     2. Green DR

     (2014) The two faces of receptor interacting protein kinase-1

     Molecular Cell 56:469–480.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2014.11.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Wingo SN
     2. Gallardo TD
     3. Akbay EA
     4. Liang M-C
     5. Contreras CM
     6. Boren T
     7. Shimamura T
     8. Miller DS
     9. Sharpless NE
     10. Bardeesy N
     11. Kwiatkowski DJ
     12. Schorge JO
     13. Wong K-K
     14. Castrillon DH

     (2009) Somatic LKB1 mutations promote cervical cancer progression

     PLOS ONE 4:e5137.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005137

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Wu P
     2. Clausen MH
     3. Nielsen TE

     (2015) Allosteric small-molecule kinase inhibitors

     Pharmacology & Therapeutics 156:59–68.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.10.002

     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Xu B
     2. Min X
     3. Stippec S
     4. Lee B-H
     5. Goldsmith EJ
     6. Cobb MH

     (2002) Regulation of WNK1 by an autoinhibitory domain and autophosphorylation

     Journal of Biological Chemistry 277:48456–48462.

     https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M207917200

     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Xu D
     2. Jin T
     3. Zhu H
     4. Chen H
     5. Ofengeim D
     6. Zou C
     7. Mifflin L
     8. Pan L
     9. Amin P
     10. Li W
     11. Shan B
     12. Naito MG
     13. Meng H
     14. Li Y
     15. Pan H
     16. Aron L
     17. Adiconis X
     18. Levin JZ
     19. Yankner BA
     20. Yuan J

     (2018) TBK1 Suppresses RIPK1-driven apoptosis and inflammation during development and in aging

     Cell 174:1477–1491.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.07.041

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Yam C
     2. Hung MC
     3. Hortobagyi GN

     (2018) CDK4/6 inhibitors in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer: Are we at the finish line?

     Oncotarget 9:34193–34195.

     https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.26134

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Yamaguchi H
     2. Hendrickson WA

     (1996) Structural basis for activation of human lymphocyte kinase Lck upon tyrosine phosphorylation

     Nature 384:484–489.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/384484a0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Yang C
     2. Li Z
     3. Bhatt T
     4. Dickler M
     5. Giri D
     6. Scaltriti M
     7. Baselga J
     8. Rosen N
     9. Chandarlapaty S

     (2017) Acquired CDK6 amplification promotes breast cancer resistance to CDK4/6 inhibitors and loss of ER signaling and dependence

     Oncogene 36:2255–2264.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2016.379

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Yang R
     2. Li SW
     3. Chen Z
     4. Zhou X
     5. Ni W
     6. Fu DA
     7. Lu J
     8. Kaye FJ
     9. Wu L

     (2019) Role of INSL4 signaling in sustaining the growth and viability of LKB1-inactivated lung cancer

     JNCI 111:664–674.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djy166

     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Yao Z
     2. Gao Y
     3. Su W
     4. Yaeger R
     5. Tao J
     6. Na N
     7. Zhang Y
     8. Zhang C
     9. Rymar A
     10. Tao A
     11. Timaul NM
     12. Mcgriskin R
     13. Outmezguine NA
     14. Zhao H
     15. Chang Q
     16. Qeriqi B
     17. Barbacid M
     18. de Stanchina E
     19. Hyman DM
     20. Bollag G
     21. Rosen N

     (2019) RAF inhibitor PLX8394 selectively disrupts BRAF dimers and RAS-independent BRAF-mutant-driven signaling

     Nature Medicine 25:284–291.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0274-5

     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Yarbrough WG
     2. Buckmire RA
     3. Bessho M
     4. Liu ET

     (1999) Biologic and biochemical analyses of p16INK4a mutations from primary tumors

     JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 91:1569–1574.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.18.1569

     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Yeon JH
     2. Heinkel F
     3. Sung M
     4. Na D
     5. Gsponer J

     (2016) Systems-wide identification of cis-regulatory elements in proteins

     Cell Systems 2:89–100.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cels.2016.02.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Yu Q
     2. Sicinska E
     3. Geng Y
     4. Ahnström M
     5. Zagozdzon A
     6. Kong Y
     7. Gardner H
     8. Kiyokawa H
     9. Harris LN
     10. Stål O
     11. Sicinski P

     (2006) Requirement for CDK4 kinase function in breast cancer

     Cancer Cell 9:23–32.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.12.012

     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Zeqiraj E
     2. Filippi BM
     3. Deak M
     4. Alessi DR
     5. van Aalten DMF

     (2009a) Structure of the LKB1-STRAD-MO25 complex reveals an allosteric mechanism of kinase activation

     Science 326:1707–1711.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178377

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Zeqiraj E
     2. Filippi BM
     3. Goldie S
     4. Navratilova I
     5. Boudeau J
     6. Deak M
     7. Alessi DR
     8. van Aalten DMF

     (2009b) ATP and MO25alpha regulate the conformational state of the STRADalpha pseudokinase and activation of the LKB1 tumour suppressor

     PLOS Biology 7:e1000126.

     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000126

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Zhang J
     2. Yang PL
     3. Gray NS

     (2009) Targeting cancer with small molecule kinase inhibitors

     Nature Reviews Cancer 9:28–39.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2559

     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Zhang JZ
     2. Lu T-W
     3. Stolerman LM
     4. Tenner B
     5. Yang JR
     6. Zhang J-F
     7. Falcke M
     8. Rangamani P
     9. Taylor SS
     10. Mehta S
     11. Zhang J

     (2020) Phase Separation of a PKA regulatory subunit controls cAMP compartmentation and oncogenic signaling

     Cell 182:1531–1544.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.07.043

     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Zhang M
     2. Maloney R
     3. Jang H
     4. Nussinov R

     (2021) The mechanism of Raf activation through dimerization

     Chemical Science 12:15609–15619.

     https://doi.org/10.1039/D1SC03444H

     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Zubiete-Franco I
     2. García-Rodríguez JL
     3. Lopitz-Otsoa F
     4. Serrano-Macia M
     5. Simon J
     6. Fernández-Tussy P
     7. Barbier-Torres L
     8. Fernández-Ramos D
     9. Gutiérrez-de-Juan V
     10. López de Davalillo S
     11. Carlevaris O
     12. Beguiristain Gómez A
     13. Villa E
     14. Calvisi D
     15. Martín C
     16. Berra E
     17. Aspichueta P
     18. Beraza N
     19. Varela-Rey M
     20. Ávila M
     21. Rodríguez MS
     22. Mato JM
     23. Díaz-Moreno I
     24. Díaz-Quintana A
     25. Delgado TC
     26. Martínez-Chantar ML

     (2019) SUMOylation regulates LKB1 localization and its oncogenic activity in liver cancer

     EBioMedicine 40:406–421.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.031

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Valentina Kugler

   1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
   2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

   Contributed equally with

   Selina Schwaighofer

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0001-1238-9530

2. Selina Schwaighofer

   1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
   2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

   Contributed equally with

   Valentina Kugler

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0009-0001-3273-7715

3. Andreas Feichtner

   1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
   2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Florian Enzler

   Daniel Swarovski Research Laboratory, Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Jakob Fleischmann

   1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
   2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Sophie Strich

   1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
   2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Sarah Schwarz

   Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Visualization

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

8. Rebecca Wilson

   The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Philipp Tschaikner

   1. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria
   2. KinCon biolabs GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   ES and PT are co-founders of KinCon biolabs; KinCon-reporters are subject of patents (WO2018060415A1)

10. Jakob Troppmair

    Daniel Swarovski Research Laboratory, Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic Surgery, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Contribution

    Conceptualization

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

11. Veronika Sexl

    University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Contribution

    Conceptualization

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Pascal Meier

    The Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom

    Contribution

    Conceptualization

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2760-6523

13. Teresa Kaserer

    Institute of Pharmacy/Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0372-1885

14. Eduard Stefan

    1. Institute for Molecular Biology and Center for Molecular Biosciences Innsbruck (CMBI), University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
    2. Tyrolean Cancer Research Institute (TKFI), Innsbruck, Austria
    3. KinCon biolabs GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

    For correspondence

    Eduard.Stefan@uibk.ac.at

    Competing interests

    ES and PT are co-founders of KinCon biolabs; KinCon-reporters are subject of patents (WO2018060415A1)

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3650-4713

• 1,239

  views

• 122

  downloads

• 0

  citations

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