RAF inhibitors promote RAS-RAF interaction by allosterically disrupting RAF autoinhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-generation RAF inhibitors paradoxically induce ERK signaling in normal and tumor cells exhibiting RAS activity. Compound-induced RAF dimerization through stabilization of the RAF ON/active state by inhibitors has emerged as a critical contributing factor. RAF inhibitors also enhance RAS-RAF association. Although this event is thought to play a key role in priming RAF activation, the underlying mechanism is not known. Here we report that RAF inhibitors induce the disruption of intramolecular interactions between the kinase domain and its N-terminal regulatory region independently of RAS activity. This provides a molecular basis to explain the induction of RAS-RAF association by RAF inhibitors, as well as the co-operativity observed between RAS activity and RAF kinase inhibitors in driving RAF activation. Profiling of second-generation RAF inhibitors confirmed their improved mode of action, but also revealed liabilities that allowed us to discern two properties of an ideal RAF inhibitor: high-binding affinity to all RAF paralogs and maintenance of the OFF/autoinhibited state of the enzyme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".