Cited by 80Protein Degradation and InhibitorsProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase SignalingUbiquitin and proteasome pathways

Exquisitely Specific anti-KRAS Biodegraders Inform on the Cellular Prevalence of Nucleotide-Loaded States

Open access
Lim, Shuhui, Khoo, Regina, Juang, Yu-Chi, Gopal, Pooja, Zhang, Huibin, Yeo, Constance, Peh, Khong Ming, Teo, Jinkai +3 more·2021·ACS Central Science

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Mutations to RAS proteins (H-, N-, and K-RAS) are among the most common oncogenic drivers, and tumors harboring these lesions are some of the most difficult to treat. Although covalent small molecules against KRAS G12C have shown promising efficacy against lung cancers, traditional barriers remain for drugging the more prevalent KRAS G12D and KRAS G12V mutants. Targeted degradation has emerged as an attractive alternative approach, but for KRAS, identification of the required high-affinity ligands continues to be a challenge. Another significant hurdle is the discovery of a hybrid molecule that appends an E3 ligase-recruiting moiety in a manner that satisfies the precise geometries required for productive polyubiquitin transfer while maintaining favorable druglike properties. To gain insights into the advantages and feasibility of KRAS targeted degradation, we applied a protein-based degrader (biodegrader) approach. This workflow centers on the intracellular expression of a chimeric protein consisting of a high-affinity target-binding domain fused to an engineered E3 ligase adapter. A series of anti-RAS biodegraders spanning different RAS isoform/nucleotide-state specificities and leveraging different E3 ligases provided definitive evidence for RAS degradability. Further, these established that the functional consequences of KRAS degradation are context dependent. Of broader significance, using the exquisite degradation specificity that biodegraders can possess, we demonstrated how this technology can be applied to answer questions that other approaches cannot. Specifically, application of the GDP-state specific degrader uncovered the relative prevalence of the “off-state” of WT and various KRAS mutants in the cellular context. Finally, if delivery challenges can be addressed, anti-RAS biodegraders will be exciting candidates for clinical development.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acscentsci.0c01337

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Pan-KRAS and other mutant-specific KRAS degraders are in preclinical development.

    “Similarly designed pan-KRAS188 and other mutant-specific KRAS degraders189 are in preclinical development.”
  • This construct rapidly degraded PCNA and maintained low levels of PCNA for the 10 days of doxycycline dosing.

    “This construct rapidly degraded PCNA and maintained low levels of PCNA for the 10 days of doxycycline dosing.”

    From PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue (2022) · cites this paper as [219]

  • After demonstrating that their GFP-degrading bioPROTACs also degraded a GFP-tagged PCNA, Partridge and colleagues replaced the GFP-binding domain in one of those bioPROTACs with the 16-amino-acid Con1 peptide to generate a Con1-SPOP bioPROTAC.

    “For example, after demonstrating that their GFP-degrading bioPROTACs also degraded a GFP-tagged proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), Partridge and colleagues219 replaced the GFP-binding domain in one of those bioPROTACs with the 16-amino-acid Con1 peptide, which contains the conserved PIP sequence common to PCNA binding partners, to generate a Con1–SPOP bioPROTAC.”

    From PROTAC targeted protein degraders: the past is prologue (2022) · cites this paper as [219]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lim, S., Khoo, R., Juang, Y.-C., Gopal, P., Zhang, H., Yeo, C., Peh, K. M., Teo, J., Ng, S., Henry, B., & Partridge, A. W.
Affiliations
MSD (Singapore) (SG)
Corresponding author
Partridge, Anthony W.
Venue
ACS Central Science
Published
2020-12-28
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
274-291
ISSN
  • 2374-7943 (ISSN-L)
  • 2374-7951
OpenAlex
W3117806362
Cited by
80
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 9
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Central Science (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Merck
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ubiquitin and proteasome pathways
Keywords
KRAS, targeted protein degradation, GDP-bound KRAS, E3 ubiquitin ligase, fusion protein, oncogenic Ras mutations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review