Independent education resourceInformation here does not replace care from a qualified health professional.
Peptide Therapy GuideClear peptide education

Educational guide

Pancreatic Cancer Drug Resistance Mechanisms Uncovered

Finding effective therapeutic targets for cancer has never been an easy undertaking. Cancer cells can quickly become resistant to treatments through adaptation, making them notoriously tricky to defeat and highly lethal. Yet now, a team of investigators, led b

Written by Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team
For education only

This guide cannot diagnose a condition or recommend a personal treatment plan. Discuss medical questions with a qualified professional.

Finding effective therapeutic targets for cancer has never been an easy undertaking. Cancer cells can quickly become resistant to treatments through adaptation, making them notoriously tricky to defeat and highly lethal. Yet now, a team of investigators, led by scientists at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Cancer Center, have uncovered some of the underlying mechanisms that drive cancer drug resistance. While investigating the basis of “adaptive resistance” common to pancreatic cancer, the researchers discovered one of the backups to which these cells switch when confronted with cancer-killing drugs. Findings from the new study were published recently in PNAS through an article titled, “Oncogenic KRAS engages an RSK1/NF1 pathway to inhibit wild-type RAS signaling in pancreatic cancer.”

“For decades, KRAS interactors have been sought after as potential therapeutic targets in KRAS mutant cancers, especially pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC),” the authors explained. “Our proximity labeling screen with KRAS in PDAC cells highlights RSK1 as a notable mutant-specific interactor.

KRAS is a gene that drives cell division. Most pancreatic cancers have a mutation in the KRAS protein, causing uncontrolled growth. But drugs that shut off mutant KRAS do not stop the proliferation. The cancer cells find a way to bypass the blockage and keep on dividing.

“You take away your main engine, and you’re kind of on some backup engines. But it’s getting by on those,” noted lead study investigator Derek Cheng, a former medical scientist training program student at CSHL. “The ship isn’t sinking yet. It’s still moving at a slower pace. Ultimately what we want to do is sink the ship.”

Senior study investigator David Tuveson, PhD, CSHL Cancer Center director and his team wanted to figure out the “backup engines” in these cancer cells. They used a technique called biotin proximity labeling to identify what other proteins interacted with mutant KRAS.

“We used proximity labeling to identify protein interactors of active KRAS in PDAC cells. We expressed fusions of wild-type (WT) (BirA-KRAS4B), mutant (BirA-KRAS4BG12D), and non-transforming cytosolic double mutant (BirA-KRAS4BG12D/C185S) KRAS with the BirA biotin ligase in murine PDAC cells,” the authors wrote. “Mass spectrometry analysis revealed that RSK1 selectively interacts with membrane-bound KRASG12D, and we demonstrated that this interaction required NF1 and SPRED2.”

“I basically attach a spray can to my favorite protein, or rather least favorite protein, in this case,” Cheng added. “And so it attaches biotin, basically spraying biotin ‘paint’ to nearby proteins, and we’re able to analyze it to figure out what proteins were labeled.”

The scientists found “biotin paint” on a protein named RSK1, which is part of a complex that keeps a nearby group of proteins, called RAS proteins, dormant. The scientists were surprised to discover that when they inactivated mutant KRAS, the nearby RSK1 complex stopped working as well. This allowed the RAS proteins to activate and take over the work of the missing mutant KRAS.

“We find that membrane RSK1 mediates negative feedback on WT RAS signaling and impedes the proliferation of pancreatic cancer cells upon the ablation of mutant KRAS,” the authors concluded. “Our findings link NF1 to the membrane-localized functions of RSK1 and highlight a role for WT RAS signaling in promoting adaptive resistance to mutant KRAS-specific inhibitors in PDAC.”

Stopping pancreatic cancer cells may require drugs that can simultaneously target multiple molecules. Tuveson hopes to uncover more of the players contributing to adaptation in cancer cells to improve future treatments.

Connected reading

Helpful context for this guide

Source-derived material selected through this article’s indexed topics.

Related questions

01Undruggable or unscreenable?

Another obstacle to discovering new PPI inhibitors is the lack of libraries designed to hunt for them, points out Philippe Roche, PhD, senior scientist at the Integrative Structural and Chemical Biology team at the Cancer Research Center of Marseilles, France. “If you screen PPIs using libraries that were designed for kinases or GPCRs, that’s why you don’t get a lot of good results,” he says. To that end, his group began assembling a library focused on orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs. The result was 2P2Idb, a hand-curated, structural database cataloguing orthosteric inhibitors of PPIs for which the interface had been 3D characterized. From analyzing these known PPI inhibitors, and what structures they had in common, Roche and his colleagues developed a model to predict whether compounds would likely inhibit PPIs. Using this method, 2P2Idb creates an enriched screening library that dramatically increases the hit rate compared to standard libraries. Having proven their success with a small library of 1600 compounds, they are in the process of expanding the library to 10,000 compounds. Once that’s published, “the idea is to make this library available to labs around the world,” Roche says. “We will provide the library free of charge for people to be able to screen PPI targets.”

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
02How stable is the antibody?

A crucial question often addressed during preclinical development focuses on the in vivo stability of therapeutic antibodies. Increasing the half-life of a therapeutic antibody has several benefits ranging from higher treatment efficacy to increased advantages for the patients who will have a fewer number of therapy sessions and a reduced cost. Given these compelling benefits, following the identification of therapeutic antibodies with the desired specificity, developers usually subject them to a refinement step to increase their stability. This process is often hindered by the lack of reliable experimental tools to predict the half-life of antibodies in patients. The major hurdle of using mouse models to predict antibody stability in the serum lies in the way immunoglobulin proteins are processed by the organism. In mammals, most proteins circulating in the serum undergo constant uptake by endothelial cells and are routed through the endosomes to the lysosomal compartment for degradation. In the endosomes, immunoglobulin G (IgG) proteins are recognized and bound by a transmembrane protein, called the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), which mediates their recycling to the plasma membrane and subsequent release back into the serum. As a result, the half-life of IgGs are significantly extended by this mechanism. Since most therapeutic antibodies belong to the IgG class, this recycling system is very relevant for their relative stability in the body. Remarkably, the relative affinity between IgGs and FcRn is extremely disparate between different species, with the mouse receptor showing a much higher affinity than its human counterpart.

Source: www.genengnews.com ↗
P

About the author

Peptide Therapy Guide Editorial Team

Editorial team for Peptide Therapy Guide.

View all articles →