Ras Variant Biology and Contributions to Human Disease

Pioneer in Molecular Biology: Conformational Ensembles in Molecular Recognition, Allostery, and Cell Function

In 1978, for my PhD, I developed the efficient O(n3) dynamic programming algorithm for the-then open problem of RNA secondary structure prediction. This algorithm, now dubbed the "Nussinov algorithm", "Nussinov plots", and "Nussinov diagrams", is still taught across Europe and the U.S. As sequences started coming out in the 1980s, I started seeking genome-encoded functional signals, later becoming a bioinformatics trend. In the early 1990s I transited to proteins, co-developing a powerful computer vision-based docking algorithm. In the late 1990s, I proposed the foundational role of conformational ensembles in molecular recognition and allostery. At the time, conformational ensembles and free energy landscapes were viewed as physical properties of proteins but were not associated with function. The classical view of molecular recognition and binding was based on only two conformations captured by crystallography: open and closed. I proposed that all conformational states preexist. Proteins always have not one folded form-nor two-but many folded forms. Thus, rather than inducing fit, binding can work by shifting the ensembles between states, and this shifting, or redistributing the ensembles to maintain equilibrium, is the origin of the allosteric effect and protein, thus cell, function. This transformative paradigm impacted community views in allosteric drug design, catalysis, and regulation. Dynamic conformational ensemble shifts are now acknowledged as the origin of recognition, allostery, and signaling, underscoring that conformational ensembles-not proteins-are the workhorses of the cell, pioneering the fundamental idea that dynamic ensembles are the driving force behind cellular processes. Nussinov was recognized as pioneer in molecular biology by JMB.

Rat Sarcoma Virus Family Genes in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Pathogenetic and Clinical Implications

Acute myeloid leukemias (AMLs) comprise a group of genetically heterogeneous hematological malignancies that result in the abnormal growth of leukemic cells and halt the maturation process of normal hematopoietic stem cells. Despite using molecular and cytogenetic risk classification to guide treatment decisions, most AML patients survive for less than five years. A deeper comprehension of the disease's biology and the use of new, targeted therapy approaches could potentially increase cure rates. RAS oncogene mutations are common in AML patients, being observed in about 15-20% of AML cases. Despite extensive efforts to find targeted therapy for RAS-mutated AMLs, no effective and tolerable RAS inhibitor has received approval for use against AMLs. The frequency of RAS mutations increases in the context of AMLs' chemoresistance; thus, novel anti-RAS strategies to overcome drug resistance and improve patients' therapy responses and overall survival are the need of the hour. In this article, we aim to update the current knowledge on the role of RAS mutations and anti-RAS strategies in AML treatments.

Dynamic regulation of RAS and RAS signaling

RAS proteins regulate most aspects of cellular physiology. They are mutated in 30% of human cancers and 4% of developmental disorders termed Rasopathies. They cycle between active GTP-bound and inactive GDP-bound states. When active, they can interact with a wide range of effectors that control fundamental biochemical and biological processes. Emerging evidence suggests that RAS proteins are not simple on/off switches but sophisticated information processing devices that compute cell fate decisions by integrating external and internal cues. A critical component of this compute function is the dynamic regulation of RAS activation and downstream signaling that allows RAS to produce a rich and nuanced spectrum of biological outputs. We discuss recent findings how the dynamics of RAS and its downstream signaling is regulated. Starting from the structural and biochemical properties of wild-type and mutant RAS proteins and their activation cycle, we examine higher molecular assemblies, effector interactions and downstream signaling outputs, all under the aspect of dynamic regulation. We also consider how computational and mathematical modeling approaches contribute to analyze and understand the pleiotropic functions of RAS in health and disease.

Neurodevelopmental disorders, immunity, and cancer are connected

Immunity could be viewed as the common factor in neurodevelopmental disorders and cancer. The immune and nervous systems coevolve as the embryo develops. Immunity can release cytokines that activate MAPK signaling in neural cells. In specific embryonic brain cell types, dysregulated signaling that results from germline or embryonic mutations can promote changes in chromatin organization and gene accessibility, and thus expression levels of essential genes in neurodevelopment. In cancer, dysregulated signaling can emerge from sporadic somatic mutations during human life. Neurodevelopmental disorders and cancer share similarities. In neurodevelopmental disorders, immunity, and cancer, there appears an almost invariable involvement of small GTPases (e.g., Ras, RhoA, and Rac) and their pathways. TLRs, IL-1, GIT1, and FGFR signaling pathways, all can be dysregulated in neurodevelopmental disorders and cancer. Although there are signaling similarities, decisive differentiating factors are timing windows, and cell type specific perturbation levels, pointing to chromatin reorganization. Finally, we discuss drug discovery.

How can same-gene mutations promote both cancer and developmental disorders?

The question of how same-gene mutations can drive both cancer and neurodevelopmental disorders has been puzzling. It has also been puzzling why those with neurodevelopmental disorders have a high risk of cancer. Ras, MEK, PI3K, PTEN, and SHP2 are among the oncogenic proteins that can harbor mutations that encode diseases other than cancer. Understanding why some of their mutations can promote cancer, whereas others promote neurodevelopmental diseases, and why even the same mutations may promote both phenotypes, has important clinical ramifications. Here, we review the literature and address these tantalizing questions. We propose that cell type–specific expression of the mutant protein, and of other proteins in the respective pathway, timing of activation (during embryonic development or sporadic emergence), and the absolute number of molecules that the mutations activate, alone or in combination, are pivotal in determining the pathological phenotypes—cancer and (or) developmental disorders.