Unveiling the Domain-Specific and RAS Isoform-Specific Details of BRAF Regulation

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Trebino et al. investigated the BRAF activation process by analysing the interactions of BRAF N-terminal regulatory regions (CRD, RBD, and BSR) with the C-terminal kinase domain and with the upstream regulators HRAS and KRAS. To this end, they generated four constructs comprising different combinations of N-terminal domains of BRAF and analysed their interaction with HRAS as well as conformational changes that occur. By HDX-MS they confirmed that the RBD is indeed the main mediator of interaction with HRAS. Moreover, they observed that HRAS binding leads to conformational changes exposing the BSR to the environment. Next, the authors used OpenSPR to determine the binding affinities of HRAS to the different BRAF constructs. While BSR+RBD, RBD+CRD, and RBD bound HRAS with nanomolar affinity, no binding was observed with the construct comprising all three domains. Based on these experiments, the authors concluded that BSR and CRD negatively regulate binding to HRAS and hypothesised that BSR may confer some RAS isoform specificity. They corroborated this notion by showing that KRAS bound to BRAF-NT1 (BSR+RBD+CRD) while HRAS did not. Next, the authors analysed the autoinhibitory interaction occurring between the N-terminal regions and the kinase domain. Through pulldown and OpenSPR experiments, they confirm that it is mainly the CRD that makes the necessary contacts with the kinase domain. In addition, they show that the BSR stabilizes these interactions and that the addition of HRAS abolishes them. Finally, the D594G mutation within the KD of BRAF is shown to destabilise these autoinhibitory interactions, which could explain its oncogenic potential.

Overall, the in vitro study provides new insights into the regulation of BRAF and its interactions with HRAS and KRAS through a comprehensive in vitro analysis of the BRAF N-terminal region. Also, the authors report the first KD values for the N- and C-terminal interactions of BRAF and show that the BSR might provide isoform specificity towards KRAS. While these findings could be useful for the development of a new generation of inhibitors, the overall impact of the manuscript could probably be enhanced if the authors were to investigate in more detail how the BSR-mediated specificity of BRAF towards certain RAS isoforms is achieved. Moreover, though the very "clean" in vitro approach is appreciated, it also seems useful to examine whether the observed interactions and conformational changes occur in the full-length BRAF molecule and in more physiological contexts. Some of the results could be compared with studies including full-length constructs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript entitled 'Unveiling the Domain-Specific and RAS Isoform-Specific Details of BRAF Regulation', the authors conduct a series of in vitro experiments using N-terminal and C-terminal BRAF fragments (SPR, HDX-MS, pull-down assays) to interrogate BRAF domain-specific autoinhibitory interactions and engagement by H- and KRAS GTPases. Of the three RAF isoforms, BRAF contains an extended N-terminal domain that has yet to be detected in X-ray and cryoEM reconstructions but has been proposed to interact with the KRAS hypervariable region. The investigators probe binding interactions between 4 N-terminal (NT) BRAF fragments (containing one more NT domain (BRS, RBD, and CRD)), with full-length bacterial expressed HRAS, KRAS as well as two BRAF C-terminal kinase fragments to tease out the underlying contribution of domain-specific binding events. They find, consistent with previous studies, that the BRAF BSR domain may negatively regulate RAS binding and propose that the presence of the BSR domain in BRAF provides an additional layer of autoinhibitory constraints that mediate BRAF activity in a RAS-isoform-specific manner. One of the fragments studied contains an oncogenic mutation in the kinase domain (BRAF-KDD594G). The investigators find that this mutant shows reduced interactions with an N-terminal regulatory fragment and postulate that this oncogenic BRAF mutant may promote BRAF activation by weakening autoinhibitory interactions between the N- and C-terminus.

While this manuscript sheds light on B-RAF specific autoinhibitory interactions and the identification and partial characterization of an oncogenic kinase domain (KD) mutant, several concerns exist with the vitro binding studies as they are performed using tagged-isolated bacterial expressed fragments, 'dimerized' RAS constructs, lack of relevant citations, controls, comparisons and data/error analysis. Detailed concerns are listed below.

1. Bacterial-expressed truncated BRAF constructs are used to dissect the role of individual domains in BRAF autoinhibition. Concerns exist regarding the possibility that bacterial expression of isolated domains or regions of BRAF could miss important posttranslational modifications, intra-molecular interactions, or conformational changes that may occur in the context of the full-length protein in mammalian cells. This concern is not addressed in the manuscript.

2. The experiments employ BRAF NT constructs that retain an MBP tag and RAS proteins with a GST tag. Have the investigators conducted control experiments to verify that the tags do not induce or perturb native interactions?

3. The investigators state that the GST tag on the RAS constructs was used to promote RAS dimerization, as RAS dimerization is proposed to be key for RAF activation. However, recent findings argue against the role of RAS dimers in RAF dimerization and activation (Simanshu et al, Mol. Cell 2023). Moreover, while GST can dimerize, it is unclear whether this promotes RAS dimerization as suggested. In methods for the OpenSPR experiments probing NT BRAF:RAS interactions, it is stated that "monomeric KRAS was flowed...". This terminology is a bit confusing. How was the monomeric state of KRAS determined and what was the rationale behind the experiment? Is there a difference in binding interactions between "monomeric vs dimeric KRAS"?

4. The investigators determine binding affinities between GST-HRAS and NT BRAF domains (NT2 7.5 {plus minus} 3.5; NT3 22 {plus minus} 11 nM) by SPR, and propose that the BRS domain has an inhibitory role HRAS interactions with the RAF NT. However, it is unclear whether these differences are statistically meaningful given the error.

5. It is unclear why NT1 (BSR+RBD+CRD) was not included in the HDX experiments, which makes it challenging to directly compare and determine specific contributions of each domain in the presence of HRAS. Including NT1 in the experimental design could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the domains and their respective roles in the HRAS-BRAF interaction. Further, excluding certain domains from the constructs, such as the BSR or CRD, may overlook potential domain-domain interactions and their influence on the conformational changes induced by HRAS binding.

6. The authors perform pulldown experiments with BRAF constructs (NT1: BSR+RBD+CRD, NT2: BSR+RBD, NT3: RBD+CRD, NT4: RBD alone), in which biotinylated BRAF-KD was captured on streptavidin beads and probed for bound His/MBP-tagged BRAF NTs. Western blot results suggest that only NT1 and NT3 bind to the KD (Figure 5). However, performing a pulldown experiment with an additional construct, CRD alone, it would help to determine whether the CRD alone is sufficient for the interaction or if the presence of the RBD is required for higher affinity binding. This additional experiment would strengthen the authors' arguments and provide further insights into the mechanism of BRAF autoinhibition.

7. While the investigators state that their findings indicate that H- and KRAS differentially interact with BRAF, most of the experiments are focused on HRAS, with only a subset on KRAS. As SPR & pull-down experiments are only conducted on NT1 and NT2, evidence for RAS isoform-specific interactions is weak. It is unclear why parallel experiments were not conducted with KRAS using BRAF NT3 & NT4 constructs.

8. The investigators do not cite the AlphaFold prediction of full-length BRAF (AF-P15056-F1) or the known X-ray structure of the BRAF BRS domain. Hence, it is unclear how Alpha-Fold is used to gain new structural information, and whether it was used to predict the structure of the N-terminal regulatory or the full-length protein.

9. In HDX-MS experiments, it is unclear how the authors determine whether small differences in deuterium uptake observed for some of the peptide fragments are statistically significant, and why for some of the labeling reaction times the investigators state " {plus minus} HRAS only" for only 3 time points?

10. The investigators find that KRAS binds NT1 in SPR experiments, whereas HRAS does not. However, the pull-down assays show NT1 binding to both KRAS and HRAS. SI Fig 5 attributes this to slow association, yet both SPR (on/off rates) and equilibrium binding measurements are conducted. This data should be able to 'tease' out differences in association.

11. The model in Figure 7B highlights BSR interactions with KRAS, however, BSR interactions with the KRAS HVR (proximal to the membrane) are not shown, as supported by Terrell et al. (2019).

12. The investigators state that 'These findings demonstrate that HRAS binding to BRAF directly relieves BRAF autoinhibition by disrupting the NT1-KD interaction, providing the first in vitro evidence of RAS-mediated relief of RAF autoinhibition, the central dogma of RAS-RAF regulation. However, in Tran et al (2005) JBC, they report pull-down experiments using N-and C-terminal fragments of BRAF and state that 'BRAF also contains an N-terminal autoinhibitory domain and that the interaction of this domain with the catalytic domain was inhibited by binding to active HRAS'. This reference is not cited.

13. In Fig 2, panels A and C, it is unclear what the grey dotted line in is each plot.

14. In Fig 3, error analysis is not provided for panel E.

15. How was RAS GMPPNP loading verified?