Abstract
KRAS is among the most commonly mutated oncogene in cancer including non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In early clinical trials, inhibitors targeting G12C-mutant KRAS have achieved responses in some patients with NSCLC. Possible intrinsic and acquired resistance mechanisms to KRAS G12C inhibitors are not fully elucidated and will likely become important to identify.
To identify potential resistance mechanisms, we defined the sensitivity of a panel of KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cell lines to a KRAS G12C inhibitor, AMG510. Gene set enrichment analyses were performed to identify pathways related to the sensitivity, which was further confirmed biochemically. In addition, we created two cell lines that acquired resistance to AMG510 and the underlying resistance mechanisms were analyzed.
KRAS expression and activation were associated with sensitivity to KRAS G12C inhibitor. Induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) led to both intrinsic and acquired resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition. In these EMT-induced cells, PI3K remained activated in the presence of KRAS G12C inhibitor and was dominantly regulated by the IGFR–IRS1 pathway. We found SHP2 plays a minimal role in the activation of the PI3K pathway in contrast to its critical role in the activation of the MAPK pathway. The combination of KRAS G12C inhibitor, PI3K inhibitor, and SHP2 inhibitor resulted in tumor regressions in mouse models of acquired resistance to AMG510.
Our findings suggest that EMT is a cause of both intrinsic and acquired resistance by activating the PI3K pathway in the presence of KRAS G12C inhibitor.
Although KRAS G12C inhibitors have shown promise in early clinical trials, responses have been variable, and intrinsic resistance limits the efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibition in a number of cancer models. In the tumors that do respond well, acquired resistance inevitably develops against molecular targeted therapies. We demonstrate that epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a cause of both intrinsic and acquired resistance to AMG510. The cause of resistance is the activation of the PI3K pathway in the presence of AMG510. While SHP2 was important for the rebound activation of ERK signaling, SHP2 only had a minimal role in PI3K activation. Accordingly, the tumors that acquired resistance to AMG510 were resensitized to AMG510 with the addition of a PI3K inhibitor and SHP2 inhibitor, resulting in tumor shrinkage in vivo. Our results suggest treatment strategies stratified by EMT status will help to improve efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitors in patients with KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer.
Introduction
KRAS mutations are commonly observed mutations in cancer. In non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), KRAS mutations are found in approximately 20%–25% of adenocarcinomas in the West and in approximately 10%–15% of cases in Asian countries (1–3). KRAS mutations occur predominantly at codons 12 and 13. Among them, the most frequent codon variant is the KRAS-G12C mutation, accounting for approximately 39% of KRAS-mutant NSCLCs (2, 3). Although direct inhibition of activated RAS represents a clinical opportunity, the relatively smooth surface architecture of RAS and its picomolar affinity for GTP/GDP have given rise to the assumption that RAS is an “undruggable” target (4).
In recent years, however, significant progress for direct inhibition of RAS has been made. The Shokat group discovered covalently linked small molecules which bind to a second pocket on RAS positioned above the switch II loop in GDP–KRAS G12C, called the switch II pocket (5–8). Among KRAS G12C inhibitors, early clinical trials have recently started with AMG510 (NCT03600883) and MRTX849 (NCT03785249; refs. 9, 10). These drugs also covalently and irreversibly bind KRAS G12C when a glycine replaces a cysteine. The binding of drugs prevents GTP binding, thus locking the protein in an inactive state and inhibiting downstream signaling. Excitingly, the early clinical results of both trials are promising, with both drugs inducing responses in patients with advanced solid tumors, including NSCLC and colorectal cancer (10–12). In all, directly targeting KRAS is now possible and demonstrates clinical activity.
While these observed responses in KRAS-mutant patients with NSCLC are encouraging, even in the most successful NSCLC targeted therapy paradigms like EGFR-mutant NSCLC and ALK translocated NSCLC, both adaptive and acquired resistance limit targeted therapy efficacy (13, 14). This is also true with targeted therapies that directly block molecules in the RAS—RAF—MEK–ERK pathway; this pathway is extensively regulated by homeostatic negative feedback controls that fine tune pathway output in both cancer and normal cells. For example, treatment with MEK inhibitors leads to activation of RAS signaling through activated receptor tyrosine kinases (RTK) including ERBB3 and FGFR; the result is adaptive resistance to MEK inhibitors (8, 15, 16). Activation of RTKs is also induced following KRAS G12C inhibitor therapy (17, 18). In addition, single-cell RNA sequencing analysis of KRAS-mutant lung cancer cell lines treated with the KRAS G12C inhibitor ARS-1620 identified that newly synthesized KRAS G12C protein is activated by EGFR, shifting KRAS G12C into its active GTP-bound state (19). Currently, a few mechanisms of adaptive resistance have been linked to KRAS G12C inhibitors (17–19); however, the full catalog of adaptive resistance mechanisms remains incomplete, as does whether any of these mechanisms also contribute to acquired resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
In this study, we interrogated the sensitivity of KRAS G12C-mutant NSCLC to KRAS G12C inhibitor and evaluated the activation status of KRAS and KRAS effector pathways in addition to gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Here in, we identified that KRAS expression and activation associate with sensitivity to KRAS G12C inhibition. GSEA demonstrated the induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) was associated with intrinsic resistance to AMG510. In laboratory experiments, we demonstrate that in EMT-induced cells, PI3K remained activated in the presence of KRAS G12C inhibitor, which was predominantly regulated by the insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGFR)–IRS1 pathway. Moreover, we demonstrate that EMT causes acquired resistance to AMG510 in KRAS G12C–mutant NSCLC cell lines. We found SHP2 had little involvement in PI3K activation in these cells but suppressed the MAPK pathway following KRAS G12C inhibitor treatment (18) Therefore, combinatorial inhibition of KRAS G12C, PI3K, and SHP2 is required to achieve tumor regressions in mouse models of acquired resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitor AMG510. In total, our data provide novel biological insights into how cancers quickly adapt to KRAS G12C inhibition as well as acquire resistance to KRAS G12C inhibition. These data may help stratify newly diagnosed patients with NSCLC with KRAS G12C mutations to KRAS G12C inhibitor monotherapy and others to combinatorial treatment of KRAS G12C inhibitor plus other pathway inhibitors. In addition, for those patients that do respond to KRAS G12C inhibitor monotherapy, these data provide a basis for eventual resistance and a corresponding treatment strategy.
Materials and Methods
Cell lines and reagents
The lung cancer cell lines NCI-H358, NCI-H1792, NCI-H23, Calu-1, and SW1573 were purchased from the ATCC. HCC44, HCC1171, and NCI-H1385 were obtained from the Korean cell line bank. LU65 and LU99 were obtained from the Japanese Cell Research Bank. Cells were cultured in RPMI1640 (Invitrogen) with 10% FBS. All cell lines were tested and authenticated by short tandem repeat analysis with GenePrint 10 System (Promega) by the Japanese Cell Research Bank. Cells were regularly screened for Mycoplasma using a MycoAlert Mycoplasma Detection Kit (Lonza). SHP099, GDC-0941, linsitinib, and infigratinib were obtained from Active Biochem, and AMG510 and ARS-1620 were purchased from MedChemExpress. Compounds were dissolved in DMSO to a final concentration of 10 mmol/L and stored at −20°C. pWZL Blast Twist ER and Snail ER were gift from Bob Weinberg (Addgene plasmid, catalog nos. 18798 and 18799). Antibodies used in this study are listed in Supplementary Table S1.
RAS Activity assay
As we described previously, RAS activity assay was performed using the RAS Activity Assay Kit (Millipore; ref. 20). To identify RAS-GTP, cell lysates were immunoprecipitated with a GST fusion protein corresponding to the RAS-binding domain of Raf-1 bound to glutathione–agarose. GTPγS and GDP protein loading were used for positive and negative controls, respectively. The RAS activity assay was repeated at least twice and a representative result is shown.
Growth assay
For adherent cell growth assays, 2,500 to 5,000 cells were seeded in each well of 96-well plates and incubated overnight. Then, cells were treated with increasing concentrations of the indicated drugs for 72 hours. Treatments with each concentration was performed six times (n = 6). Cell viability was assessed by an imaging system (Incucyte, Essen Instruments) or the Cell Counting Kit (CCK)-8 assay (Dojindo Laboratories) recorded by Multiskan Microplate Reader (Thermo Fisher Scientific). For spheroid viability assays, cells were seeded in 96-well spheroid microplates (Corning). The same procedure was followed as described above, and viability was measured using a CellTiter-Glo 3D Cell Viability Assay Kit (Promega) according to the manufacturer's protocol. The data were graphically displayed using GraphPad Prism version 6.0 (GraphPad Software).
Generation of AMG510- and ARS-1620–resistant cells
NCI-H358 and LU65 cells were seeded at 50% to 70% confluence in 10-cm dishes in RPMI1640 with 10% FBS. AMG510 or ARS-1620 were added at a starting concentration of 1 nmol/L, and cells were maintained in fresh drug-containing medium changed every 3 days. Cells were passaged once they reached confluence. After every two passages at a given concentration of drug, the concentration was increased in half-log intervals until final concentrations of 1 μmol/L for AMG510 and 10 μmol/L for ARS-1620 were achieved. The resulting pool of resistant cells (named NCI-H358-AMGR, LU65-AMGR, and NCI-H358 ARS-R) were maintained in RPMI with 10% FBS containing the appropriate drug (1 μmol/L AMG510 or 10 μmol/L ARS-1620).
Xenograft mouse studies
Suspension of 5 × 106 cells was injected subcutaneously into the flanks of 6- to 8-week-old male nude mice (Chubu Kagaku Shizai Co., Ltd.). The care and treatment of experimental animals were in accordance with institutional guidelines. Tumors were randomized (n = 6) once the mean tumor volume reached approximately 150–200 mm3. Drugs were administered once daily by oral gavage. SHP099 was dissolved in 5% DMSO, 0.5% methylcellulose, and 0.1% Tween 80. AMG510 was dissolved in 0.5% methylcellulose and 1% Tween 80. GDC-0941 was dissolved in 0.5% methylcellulose and 0.2% Tween 80. Mice were monitored daily for body weight and general condition. Tumors were measured twice weekly using calipers, and volume was calculated using the following formula: length × width2 × 0.52. According to institutional guidelines, mice were sacrificed when the tumors they harbored reached a volume of 1,000 mm3. All animal experiments were performed according to the protocols approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at Aichi Cancer Center (Nagoya, Japan).
qPCR Analysis
RNA was extracted using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen), and cDNA was generated by the High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific) according to the manufacturer's instructions as described previously (21). qRT-PCR was performed using Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Each sample was normalized to the housekeeping gene ubiquitin. All samples were analyzed in triplicate, and the relative expression of each gene to those in NCI-H358 parental cells was determined. Primer sets are shown in Supplementary Table S2.
Statistical analysis
In Figs. 2B, G, 3E, H, K, 4C, 6B, D, and E, unpaired Student t test was used. Statistical tests were two-sided and significance was established for P < 0.05. The Bonferroni correction was applied to correct for multiple comparisons within each experiment.
Additional methods are included in Supplementary Methods.
Results
KRAS activity is related to the sensitivity to KRAS G12C inhibitor
To interrogate molecular features that distinguish KRAS G12C inhibitor sensitive and resistant cell lines, we first determined the sensitivity of a panel of 10 KRAS G12C–mutant NSCLC cell lines to a KRAS G12C inhibitor, AMG510. Direct sequencing analysis of KRAS exon 2 confirmed that six of the lines had G12C heterozygous mutations and four had homozygous mutations (Supplementary Fig. S1A). While NCI-H358, LU65, and NCI-H1385 were sensitive as their IC50 were less than 100 nmol/L, the HCC1171, NCI-H23, HCC44, and Calu-1 cell lines were defined as having intermediate sensitivity, as while each cell line had a degree of response, they were not sensitive enough to obtain an IC50 from the doses and duration of the assay used in this study. LU99, NCI-H1792, and SW1573 were defined as resistant as they were minimally affected by AMG510 (Fig. 1A and B). The sensitivity to AMG510 was enhanced under three-dimensional (3D) spheroid condition compared with two-dimensional (2D) conditions. Whether cell lines were heterozygous or homozygous for KRAS G12C mutants did not determine the degree of sensitivity (Fig. 1A and B; Supplementary Fig. S1A).
We next determined the correlation between AMG510 sensitivity and the engagement of KRAS effector molecules. While AMG510 led to sustained inhibition of KRAS GTP activity for 48 hours, variable suppression of PI3K/AKT and ERK phosphorylation was observed (Supplementary Fig. S1B). Consistent with previous work suggesting that repression of mTOR activation is a good predictor of viability outcome in response to target therapies, including a different KRAS inhibitor ARS-1620 (17), S6 phosphorylation was transiently reduced in AMG510-sensitive cell lines, but not in resistant cells (Supplementary Fig. S1B). Whereas previous studies using MEK inhibitor suggested that rebound activation of ERK signal or S6 phosphorylation was a cause of intrinsic resistance to the drug (15), the degree of ERK and S6 suppression at 48 hours following drug treatment was not associated with sensitivity to AMG510 (Supplementary Fig. S1B).
As it has become evident that the induction of apoptosis is a critical component of effective targeted therapy treatment (22), we have analyzed whether KRAS G12C inhibitor leads to perturbation of the apoptosis-mediating BCL-2 family proteins. Interestingly, upregulation of Puma and BIM, proapoptotic BH3-only BCL-2 family members that contribute to the induction of apoptosis, were observed in AMG510-sensitive cell lines, while these proteins were only modestly upregulated in the KRAS G12C inhibitor insensitive cell lines (Fig. 1C).
To identify pathways related to the sensitivity to AMG510, we employed GSEA between sensitive and resistant cell lines. GSEA demonstrated that greater expression of KRAS-dependent signature genes, which was generated by comparing cells between sensitive and resistant to KRAS knockdown (23), associated with sensitivity to AMG510 (Fig. 1D; Supplementary Table S3). Interestingly, KRAS dependency can be determined by the amount of KRAS protein (23); consistent with this notion, high protein expression of KRAS was associated with AMG510 sensitivity. Furthermore, we found that KRAS GTP activity was also associated with KRAS protein expression and sensitivity to AMG510 (Fig. 1E). Thus, KRAS expression and activation is correlated with sensitivity to KRAS G12C inhibitor.
Mesenchymal phenotype is related to the reduced sensitivity to KRAS G12C inhibitor
In addition to a KRAS-dependency signature that associated with sensitivity to AMG510, GSEA showed striking representation of genes related to EMT enriched in AMG510-resistant cell lines (Fig. 2A; Supplementary Fig. S2A; Supplementary Table S3). The sensitivity to AMG510 was strongly associated with EMT scoring established from various cancer-specific transcriptomic EMT signatures (Fig. 2B; ref. 24).
To further determine whether EMT is a cause of resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitor, we induced EMT via chronic TGFβ treatment (15) in the epithelial marker–positive and AMG510-sensitive NCI-H358 and LU65 cells. Strikingly, induction of EMT in NCI-H358 and LU65 cells was sufficient to induce resistance to AMG510 (Fig. 2C and D). Induction of EMT led to rewiring of the expression of several RTKs, such as ERBB3 and FGFR1 (Supplementary Fig. S2B), coinciding with suppression of E-cadherin (Fig. 2C). Importantly, we also found that induction of EMT resulted in the reduced expression and activation of KRAS, which was observed in AMG510-insensitive cell lines (Fig. 1E and 2E). Of note, ERK phosphorylation was paradoxically higher in the EMT-induced cells while KRAS was suppressed.
To test the impact of EMT on the efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitor by other means, we induced EMT by utilizing Twist-ER and Snail-ER plasmids that enables conditional activation of the EMT transcription factors Twist or Snail in the presence of 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT; ref. 25). Following infection with Twist-ER or Snail-ER-containing virus and antibiotic resistance selection, we generated NCI-H358 cells that stably express the Twist-ER or Snail-ER construct (H358 Snail-ER and H358 Twist-ER). Subsequent treatment of these cells with 4-OHT over 2 weeks led to induction of EMT, as evidenced by decreased E-cadherin and increased vimentin levels as well as rewiring of RTKs (Fig. 2F; Supplementary Fig. S2C). Indeed, H358 Twist-ER and Snail-ER cells became resistant to AMG510, again, coinciding with reduced KRAS expression and activation (Fig. 2G and H). Thus, EMT is a cause of intrinsic resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitor.
Sustained activation of PI3 kinase following KRAS inhibition leads to resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitor in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cells
We next investigated how EMT affected KRAS effector signaling. AMG510 treatment led to significant suppression of KRAS activity; however, sustained AKT phosphorylation was observed following AMG510 treatment in EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells (Fig. 3A and B). Also, rebound activation of ERK and S6 was observed in EMT-induced cells. To determine whether sustained activation of AKT signal is a cause of resistance to AMG510, a PI3K inhibitor GDC-0941 was combined with AMG510 in EMT-induced cells. Indeed, addition of GDC-0941 to AMG510 led to downregulation of AKT signal and S6 phosphorylation in NCI-H358 cells treated with TGFβ (Fig. 3C) and Twist-ER and Snail-ER cells (Fig. 3D). Consistent with an important role of PI3K/AKT signaling in KRAS G12C inhibitor efficacy (17), the combination of PI3K and KRAS G12C inhibition led to profound inhibition of cell growth compared with single-agent AMG510 in TGFβ-treated NCI-H358 cells (Fig. 3E). These results indicate that KRAS G12C–independent AKT activation is a cause of resistance to AMG510 in mesenchymal like KRAS-mutant cancer cells and that combination with a PI3K inhibitor can restore sensitivity.
IGFR–IRS1 signaling maintains AKT phosphorylation in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cell lines
To interrogate how PI3K–AKT signal is maintained following AMG510 treatment in EMT-induced KRAS G12C–mutant cancer cells, we performed immunoprecipitation of PI3K. The regulatory subunit (p85) of PI3K occurs in complex with catalytic subunit (p110α), which keeps the PI3K in an inactive, cytosolic state. The PI3K is recruited to the plasma membrane via binding of the SH2 domains of p85 to tyrosine-phosphorylated RTKs or adaptor proteins. This recruitment leads to a derepression of the p85–p110 dimer and association with its lipid substrates (26, 27). In EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells, interaction of p85 with IRS1, an important adaptor protein to the IGFR, was detected (Fig. 3F). Inhibition of IGFR by the IGFR inhibitor linsitinib remarkably suppressed AKT phosphorylation in TGFβ-treated NCI-H358 cells, suggesting IGFR-dependent, KRAS G12C–independent, activation of PI3K–AKT signal (Fig. 3F and G). We also identified that IGFBP-2, a protein that is known to inhibit IGFR activation, was significantly downregulated in the AMG510-insensitive cell lines in the EMT-related genes sets (Supplementary Fig. S2A). Consistently, IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-3 were significantly downregulated in EMT-induced NCI-H358 cell line (Fig. 3H and I). These results suggest that the IGFR–IRS1 pathway is upregulated, potentially due to downregulation of IGFBP-2 and IGFBP-3, which maintains PI3K–AKT signal in the presence of KRAS G12C inhibitor in EMT-induced cells.
Induction of EMT rewires the expression of RTKs. While ERBB3 expression was reduced upon EMT, upregulation of FGFR1 expression was observed during the EMT process (Supplementary Fig. S2B and S2C). FGFR1–FRS2 pathway plays a critical role in the feedback reactivation of MAPK following MEK inhibition in mesenchymal marker–positive KRAS-mutant lung cancer cell lines (15). To determine the role of FGFR signal in the activation of AKT signal following AMG510 treatment, EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells were treated with AMG510 and linsitinib with or without infigratinib, an FGFR inhibitor. FGFR inhibition combined with KRAS G12C inhibition resulted in a minimal effect on AKT signal, while further suppression of ERK signal was observed compared with AMG510 monotherapy (Fig. 3J). Addition of FGFR inhibitor to the combination of IGFR inhibitor and KRAS G12C inhibitor blocked residual AKT and S6 phosphorylation. Furthermore, combination of AMG510 with FGFR inhibitor and IGFR inhibitor led to profound inhibition of cell survival compared with single-agent AMG510, the combination of AMG510 and IGFR inhibitor or the combination of AMG510 and FGFR inhibitor (Fig. 3K). These results suggest that upregulated IGFR signal predominantly regulates PI3K–AKT activation, while other RTKs, such as FGFR, are also involved in the activation of the pathway in mesenchymal like KRAS G12C–mutant cancer. Notably, IGFR inhibitor did not affect ERK phosphorylation, suggesting that IGFR signal is only involved in PI3K–AKT signaling.
SHP2-independent PI3K–AKT activation impaired the efficacy for the combination of AMG510 with SHP2 inhibitor in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cell lines
SHP2 is a phosphatase that positively transduces RTK signaling to KRAS and concomitant inhibition of KRAS G12C and SHP2 led to more durable ERK inhibition by abrogating RTK-mediated MAPK pathway reactivation (18). Therefore, the combination of KRAS G12C inhibitor with SHP2 inhibitor is currently being investigated in clinical trials. To determine whether SHP2 inhibition can downregulate PI3K–AKT signaling in mesenchymal like KRAS G12C–mutant cancers, AMG510 was combined with SHP099, a SHP2 inhibitor. We found that SHP099 led to only modest suppression of AKT phosphorylation in AMG510-treated NCI-H358 TGFβ cell line, suggesting the activation of PI3K–AKT signal by IGFR is SHP2 independent (Fig. 4A). The results led us to test the efficacy of combining AMG510 with a PI3K inhibitor and a SHP2 inhibitor. While inhibition of SHP2 with AMG510 resulted in complete suppression of ERK signaling, only the combination of these three drugs resulted in the suppression of both PI3K–AKT and MAPK signaling pathways as well as S6 phosphorylation in EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells (Fig. 4B). Consistent with the results of signaling analysis, whereas combination of SHP2 inhibitor with AMG510 resulted in better growth suppression compared with AMG510 single treatment, the efficacy was modest compared with the combination of PI3K inhibitor with AMG510. Furthermore, proliferation assays demonstrated only the triple combination was able to abrogate cell growth (Fig. 4C).
We further investigated the effects of the triple therapy of AMG510, GDC-0941, and SHP099 in mesenchymal-like KRAS-mutant lung cancer cell lines. In AMG510-insensitive SW1573 and LU99 mesenchymal-like KRAS-mutant lung cancer cell lines, AMG510 treatment led to transient suppression of ERK phosphorylation and minimal effects on AKT phosphorylation (Supplementary Fig. S1B). Similar to EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells, the combination of AMG510 with SHP099 sustainably downregulated ERK phosphorylation; however, this combination minimally altered AKT phosphorylation. Further addition of GDC-0941 to the combination of AMG510 and SHP099 resulted in the inhibition of both AKT and ERK activation as well as upregulation of proapoptotic proteins BIM and Puma (Fig. 4D). Profound growth reduction was observed by combining AMG510 with both a PI3K inhibitor and SHP2 inhibitor in mesenchymal like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cell lines (Fig. 4E). Collectively, SHP2 inhibition led to abrogate feedback activation of ERK following AMG510 treatment; however, concomitant PI3K inhibition is required to maximize the efficacy of AMG510 in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cell lines.
EMT is a cause of acquired resistance to AMG510
As we established EMT as a cause of intrinsic resistance, we shifted our focus to causes of acquired resistance. Therefore, NCI-H358 and LU65 cells with acquired resistance to the KRAS G12C inhibitor AMG510 (NCI-H358-AMGR and LU65-AMGR) were generated (Fig. 5A and B). Indeed, GSEA analysis of NCI-H358-AMGR cells showed that KRAS dependency and EMT signatures were among the top positively and negatively regulated signatures between parental and resistant cells, respectively (Fig. 5C; Supplementary Table S4). Consistently, closer examination of the cells indicated morphologic changes consistent with EMT, as well as downregulation of E-cadherin and upregulation of vimentin (Fig. 5D; Supplementary Fig. S3A and S3B). Moreover, in an independently produced resistant model to a chemically distinct KRAS G12C inhibitor, ARS-1620, we also observed induction of EMT (Supplementary Fig. S3C and S3D). To recapitulate the in vitro results, we have obtained NCI-H358 xenograft tumors became resistant to AMG510 after 2-month treatment of the drug (Supplementary Fig. S3E). Consistent with the in vitro results, induction of vimentin was identified in the resistant tumors. Notably, no acquired mutations in the KRAS gene were observed in any of these in vitro and in vivo resistant models. These results suggest induction of EMT is also a cause of acquired resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors.
We next interrogated the status of KRAS and its downstream effector molecules following AMG510 treatment in AMG510-resistant cells. In fact, both NCI-H358-AMGR and LU65-AMGR cells have reduced basal activation of KRAS compared with parental cells, which could be fully suppressed by AMG510 (Fig. 5E). While AMG510 downregulated both AKT and ERK phosphorylation in NCI-H358 and LU65 parental cells, AMG510 resulted in only modest suppression of AKT phosphorylation and failed to sustainably suppress ERK phosphorylation in NCI-H358-AMGR and LU65-AMGR cells. Similar results were also observed in NCI-H358 ARS-R cells (Supplementary Fig. S3F). In the EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells that developed adaptive resistance to AMG510, IGFR activated AKT while FGFR mediated rebound activation of ERK (Fig. 3J and K). This led us to test the effects of IGFR and FGFR inhibition in AMGR cells. Indeed, the IGFR inhibitor linsitinib was able to downregulate AKT phosphorylation and the FGFR inhibitor infigratinib abrogated feedback activation of ERK in AMGR cells (Fig. 6A). Knockdown of FGFR1 and IGF1R also downregulated ERK and AKT phosphorylation, respectively, in the AMGR cells (Supplementary Fig. S4A). Consistent with the genetic experiments, the combination of AMG510 with linsitinib and infigratinib downregulated both AKT and ERK phosphorylation and inhibited cell proliferation (Fig. 6B). We then interrogated the efficacy combining AMG510, SHP099 and GDC-0941 in resistant cells. As we observed in the EMT-induced NCI-H358 cells that developed adaptive resistance to AMG510, while SHP099 downregulated ERK phosphorylation, SHP099 minimally affected AKT phosphorylation in the NCI-H358-AMGR and LU65-AMGR cells (Fig. 6C). Finally, the triple combination of AMG510, GDC0941, and SHP099 led to downregulation of both AKT and ERK signaling and robust growth inhibition in these cells (Fig. 6D).
Combinatorial inhibition of KRAS G12C, PI3K, and SHP2 leads to tumor shrinkage in vivo
These findings led us to test the efficacy of combination of KRAS G12C inhibitor with PI3K and SHP2 inhibitors in vivo. We first confirmed xenografted tumors formed from AMGR cells retained resistance to AMG510 in vivo (Fig. 6E; Supplementary Fig. S4B). While neither GDC-0941 nor SHP099 monotherapy had a significant effect of tumor growth in the AMGR tumor xenograft model, tumor growth was slowed when treated with the combination of AMG510 with either SHP2 inhibitor or PI3K inhibitor. However, consistent with the in vitro data (Fig. 6D), only the combination of all three drugs achieved tumor shrinkage in vivo (Fig. 6E; Supplementary Fig. S4C). Importantly, the drug combination was tolerated by the mice over a 4-week treatment period (Supplementary Fig. S4D). Pharmacodynamic studies of the drug-treated tumors recapitulated the in vitro results of the AMG510-resistant cells: AMGR tumors had reduced KRAS-GTP activity (Fig. 6F) and AMG510 modestly suppressed ERK phosphorylation, while activation of AKT was minimally suppressed. While again, the addition of SHP2 inhibitor further suppressed ERK phosphorylation when compared with AMG510 monotherapy in these tumors, AKT remained activated. Again, as in the in vitro results (Fig. 6D) and consistent with the in vivo efficacy results (Fig. 6E), the triple combination of AMG510, GDC-0941, and SHP099 led to suppression of both AKT and ERK in the tumors, resulting in downregulation of S6 phosphorylation in the tumors (Fig. 6G).
Discussion
Mutant KRAS is an oncogenic driver, which is now druggable with small molecules like AMG510. However, even before these molecules were available, it was clear some KRAS-mutant NSCLCs were not markedly sensitive to genetic ablation of mutant KRAS. Laboratory experiments suggested that KRAS-mutant cancer cells dependent on or addicted to KRAS oncogene are more associated with an epithelial phenotype, whereas those independent of KRAS present with a mesenchymal phenotype (23). Indeed, our results showed the sensitivity of KRAS G12C inhibitor was associated with an epithelial-like phenotype and induction of EMT in these cells to a more mesenchymal-like phenotype led to acquired resistance to the drug. We also identified lower KRAS protein expression and KRAS-GTP activity in EMT cells with intrinsic and acquired resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitor. Our results indicate that sensitivity to mutant KRAS–specific inhibitor is associated with the extent of which the tumor cells depend on mutant KRAS for their survival. Whereas the relationship between KRAS gene amplification and sensitivity to another KRAS inhibitor, ARS-1620, was not clear in a previous report (17), the potency of AMG510 is approximately 10-fold as compared with ARS-1620 in a nucleotide-exchange assay with recombinant GDP-bound KRAS G12C (9). Thus, it is plausible that the greater inhibition of KRAS G12C led to the identification of the relationship between efficacy to AMG510 and KRAS expression and activation.
In the KRAS G12C–mutant cancer cells with a more mesenchymal phenotype, we have identified sustained activation of PI3K following AMG510 treatment as an underlying cause of resistance, which is dominantly mediated by IGFR. Multiple RTKs, such as AXL and FGFR, are involved in EMT-related resistance to molecular targeted therapy (28–30). Furthermore, the McCormick group identified alternative molecular paths to PI3K activation that are critical signaling aspects of cells that undergo EMT (31). In their study, while ERBB3 mediated autocrine activation of PI3K signaling in epithelial cancer cells, overexpression of PI3K or growth factor–dependent AKT activation were needed in mesenchymal cells to maintain PI3K activation and cell proliferation. In this study, we found that downregulation of IGFBP-2 and IGFBP3, proteins that attenuate IGFR signaling by binding to IGF-1 and IGF-2, is a mean to maintain PI3K signaling in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cells. Interestingly, loss of IGF-binding proteins also activates PI3K signaling in EGFR-driven cancer models, resulting in acquired resistance to EGFR inhibitors (32).
Activation of PI3K is mediated by multiple upstream signals, some of which are dependent on KRAS, while others are not. We have identified that AMG510 minimally affected AKT phosphorylation in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant cell lines. In these cells, PI3K was activated by IGFR–IRS1 through binding with p85, with minimal contribution from KRAS G12C. Dominant regulation of PI3K signaling through IGFR was also previously reported in KRAS-mutant colorectal and lung cancers (33, 34). In healthy cells, RTKs and GPCRs drive appropriate PI3K activation. These cues include those received through direct binding to receptors or adaptors, as well as through RAS and Rho GTPases (35). In contrast, tumor cells often require inappropriate PI3K activity for their growth and survival and gain this through three major mechanisms: (1) increased RTK activation, which drives higher PI3K activity through adaptor proteins; (2) increased activity through mutant RAS and (3) diverse, tumor-specific microenvironmental triggers (36). In mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant cancer cell lines, we identified significant downregulation of IGF-binding proteins, which leads to the activation of IGFR signaling. Our results also suggest that KRAS G12C mutant has minor roles in the activation of PI3K in mesenchymal-like KRAS G12C–mutant cancers. Activated RAS proteins bind directly to an N-terminal RAS-binding domain on p110α, acting synergistically with the input from tyrosine-phosphorylated proteins to optimally activate lipid kinase activity (37, 38). Supporting our observations, insulin responsiveness was not affected in mouse embryonic fibroblasts harboring mutations in p110α that block the interaction with Ras (38).
The role of SHP2 in the PI3K pathway is not well defined. While SHP2 can negatively regulate the level of AKT signaling by dephosphorylating the p85 binding sites on GAB1 following EGF stimulation (39), there has been conflicting reports on the role of SHP2 in the activation of IGFR–IRS signaling (39–41). In the KRAS G12C–mutant lung cancer cells, inhibition of SHP2 modestly suppressed AKT phosphorylation, suggesting that PI3K is dominantly activated by a SHP2-independent signal. In contrast, SHP2 activates RAS–MAPK signaling by binding to adaptor proteins such as GAB1 and GAB2 through its SH2 domains and also GRB2 in the presence of a phosphorylated YXXN motif (26, 42). We also showed that cotreatment of SHP099 with AMG510 led to shutdown of the feedback activation of MAPK signal following AMG510 treatment. Currently, combination strategies for KRAS G12C inhibitor has been sought to improve the efficacy of KRAS G12C inhibitors, especially because KRAS G12C inhibitors have a good toxicity profile due to the sparing of wild-type KRAS, found in normal cells. Pharmacologic and/or CRISPR Cas9 screening identified several candidates including SHP2 (10, 17, 18, 43). These results suggest a potency combining SHP2 with KRAS G12C inhibitor, however, our results also suggest that SHP2 inhibitor cannot attenuate PI3K activation mediated by RTKs, especially in mesenchymal-like KRAS-mutant lung cancer.
Blockade of both MAPK and PI3K has been proposed as a means to achieve synergistic cell killing and to abrogate adaptive resistance to single-axis targeted therapies in variable cancers including KRAS-mutant cancers (44). Similarly, the triple combination of AMG510 with SHP2 inhibitor and PI3K inhibitor led to downregulation of both signaling pathways and achieved remarkable tumor regression in an AMG510-resistant EMT model. However, early clinical trials investigating simultaneous blockade of MAPK and PI3K led to compounded and often dose-limiting toxicities (45). Therefore, it is unclear if the combination of AMG510 with SHP2 inhibitor and PI3K inhibitor will be feasible in the clinic. From a translational medicine perspective, our finding appears to suggest that inhibition of SHP2 together with KRAS G12C is not adequate to inhibit tumor growth and additional PI3K inhibition is needed to overcome intrinsic and acquired resistance to KRAS G12C inhibitors. In contrast, tumors with a KRAS-dependent subtype maximally activate MAPK by engaging RAF and very few other effectors (46). Therefore, targeting SHP2 to inhibit feedback activation of MAPK following mutant KRAS inhibition could be an effective strategy against epithelial-like KRAS G12C–mutant cancers.
In conclusion, our results indicate that EMT is a cause of intrinsic and acquired resistance by maintaining PI3K pathway in the presence of KRAS G12C inhibitor. The lack of suppression in PI3K signal by SHP2 inhibitor suggests that the combination of SHP2 inhibitor and KRAS G12C inhibitor may not be effective in these cancers. We have previously identified that KRAS-mutant lung cancer could be classified into two groups based on epithelial and mesenchymal markers (15). Assessing EMT status in tumor may help to identify patients who are likely respond to KRAS G12C inhibitors and those that unlikely will need a more comprehensive therapy to mitigate sustained PI3K activity.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
H. Ebi reports grants from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund, and Takeda Science Foundation during the conduct of the study. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.
Authors' Contributions
Y. Adachi: Data curation, formal analysis, validation, investigation, writing-review and editing. K. Ito: Formal analysis, writing-review and editing. Y. Hayashi: Data curation, formal analysis, validation, investigation. R. Kimura: Formal analysis, validation, investigation, writing-review and editing. T.Z. Tan: Resources, software, formal analysis, writing-review and editing. R. Yamaguchi: Data curation, software, formal analysis, writing-review and editing. H. Ebi: Conceptualization, supervision, funding acquisition, writing-original draft, project administration, writing-review and editing.
Acknowledgments
This study is supported by the Fund for the Promotion of Joint International Research from JSPS (15KK0303), P-CREATE from the AMED under grant number 19cm0106513h0004, Princess Takamatsu Cancer Research Fund, and Takeda Science Foundation (to H. Ebi). The supercomputing resource was provided by Human Genome Center, Institute of Medical Science, The University of Tokyo (http://sc.hgc.jp/shirokane.html).
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.