Back to Authors

Coker, Oluwadara

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0504-2747

Mayo Clinic

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Citations 2

Defining the KRAS- and ERK-dependent transcriptome in KRAS-mutant cancers
Klomp, Jennifer E. , Stalnecker, Clint A. , Bryant, Kirsten L. , Edwards, A. Cole , Drizyte‐Miller, Kristina , Hibshman, Priya S. , Diehl, J. Nathaniel , Lee, Ye S. , Morales, Alexis Jean , Taylor, Khalilah E. , Peng, Sen, Tran, Nhan L. , Prevatte, Alex W., Hover, Laura D. , Hallin, Jill , Chowdhury, Saikat , Coker, Oluwadara , Olson, Peter , Christensen, James G. , Graves, Lee M. , Wennerberg, Krister , Klomp, Jeffrey A , Klomp, Jennifer E , Stalnecker, Clint A , Bryant, Kirsten L , Drizyte-Miller, Kristina , Diehl, J Nathaniel , Lee, Ye S , Morales, Alexis J , Taylor, Khalilah E , Herring, Laura E , Barker, Natalie K , Hallin, Jill , Chowdhury, Saikat , Coker, Oluwadara , Lee, Hey Min , Goodwin, Craig M , Gautam, Prson , Olson, Peter , Christensen, James G , Shen, John P , Kopetz, Scott , Graves, Lee M , Lim, Kian-Huat , Wang-Gillam, Andrea , Wennerberg, Krister , Cox, Adrienne D , Der, Channing J , Tran, Nhan L , Herring, Laura E. , Barker, Natalie K. , Gautam, Prson , Kopetz, Scott , Wang‐Gillam, Andrea , Cox, Adrienne D.

Science | June 6, 2024 | Volume: 384 | Issue: 6700 | Pages: No page available

10.1126/science.adk0775 Get It

How the KRAS oncogene drives cancer growth remains poorly understood. Therefore, we established a systemwide portrait of KRAS- and extracellular signal–regulated kinase (ERK)–dependent gene transcription in KRAS-mutant cancer to delineate the molecular mechanisms of growth and of inhibitor resistance. Unexpectedly, our KRAS-dependent gene signature diverges substantially from the frequently cited Hallmark KRAS signaling gene signature, is driven predominantly through the ERK mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascade, and accurately reflects KRAS- and ERK-regulated gene transcription in KRAS-mutant cancer patients. Integration with our ERK-regulated phospho- and total proteome highlights ERK deregulation of the anaphase promoting complex/cyclosome (APC/C) and other components of the cell cycle machinery as key processes that drive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) growth. Our findings elucidate mechanistically the critical role of ERK in driving KRAS-mutant tumor growth and in resistance to KRAS-ERK MAPK targeted therapies.
Clinical and Functional Characterization of Atypical KRAS / NRAS Mutations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Loree, Jonathan M. , Wang, Yucai , Syed, Muddassir, Sorokin, Alexey V. , Coker, Oluwadara , Xiu, Joanne , Weinberg, Benjamin A. , Vanderwalde, Ari M. , Tesfaye, Anteneh , Raymond, Victoria M. , Miron, Benjamin , Tarcic, Gabi , Zelichov, Ori, Broaddus, Russell R. , Ng, Patrick Kwok Shing , Jeong, Kang Jin , Tsang, Yiu Huen , Overman, Michael J. , Mills, Gordon B , Overman, Michael J , Marshall, John L , Raymond, Victoria M , Wang, Yucai , VanderWalde, Ari , Loree, Jonathan M , Mills, Gordon B. , Grothey, Axel , Kopetz, Scott

Clinical Cancer Research | June 11, 2021 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 16 | Pages: 4587-4598

10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-21-0180 Get It

Abstract Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.