4.8 Article

Systematic RNA interference reveals that oncogenic KRAS-driven cancers require TBK1

Journal

NATURE
Volume 462, Issue 7269, Pages 108-U122

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature08460

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US National Cancer Institute [R33 CA128625, R01 CA130988]
  2. NIH [T32 CA09172-33]
  3. Starr Cancer Consortium [I1-A11]
  4. Susan Madden Fund
  5. ASCO YIA
  6. Department of Defense Prostate Cancer Postdoctoral Fellowship
  7. Brain Science Foundation Fellowship
  8. Deutsche Krebshilfe [107954]
  9. Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung [10.08.2.175]
  10. German Ministry of Science and Education [01GS08100]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The proto-oncogene KRAS is mutated in a wide array of human cancers, most of which are aggressive and respond poorly to standard therapies. Although the identification of specific oncogenes has led to the development of clinically effective, molecularly targeted therapies in some cases, KRAS has remained refractory to this approach. A complementary strategy for targeting KRAS is to identify gene products that, when inhibited, result in cell death only in the presence of an oncogenic allele(1,2). Here we have used systematic RNA interference to detect synthetic lethal partners of oncogenic KRAS and found that the non-canonical I kappa B kinase TBK1 was selectively essential in cells that contain mutant KRAS. Suppression of TBK1 induced apoptosis specifically in human cancer cell lines that depend on oncogenic KRAS expression. In these cells, TBK1 activated NF-kappa B anti-apoptotic signals involving c-Rel and BCL-XL (also known as BCL2L1) that were essential for survival, providing mechanistic insights into this synthetic lethal interaction. These observations indicate that TBK1 and NF-kappa B signalling are essential in KRAS mutant tumours, and establish a general approach for the rational identification of co-dependent pathways in cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available