Next Article in Journal
Effects of Intramolecular Distance between Amyloidogenic Domains on Amyloid Aggregation
Next Article in Special Issue
Phosphoproteomics and Lung Cancer Research
Previous Article in Journal
Purification and Characterization of a Ginsenoside Rb1-Hydrolyzing β-Glucosidase from Aspergillus niger KCCM 11239
Previous Article in Special Issue
Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Antibodies Overcome Resistance of Ovarian Cancer Cells to Targeted Therapy and Natural Cytotoxicity

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012, 13(10), 12153-12168; doi:10.3390/ijms131012153

Prognostic and Predictive Roles of KRAS Mutation in Colorectal Cancer
Amanda K. Arrington 1,*, Eileen L. Heinrich 1, Wendy Lee 1, Marjun Duldulao 1, Supriya Patel 2, Julian Sanchez 1, Julio Garcia-Aguilar 3 and Joseph Kim 1,*
Division of Surgical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA 91010, USA; E-Mails: (E.L.H.); (W.L.); (M.D.); (J.S.)
Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90001, USA; E-Mail:
Division of Colorectal Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 11597, USA; E-Mail:
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mails: (A.K.A.); (J.K.); Tel.: +1-626-471-7100 (J.K.); Fax: +1-626-301-8865 (J.K.).
Received: 26 July 2012; in revised form: 6 September 2012 / Accepted: 6 September 2012 /
Published: 25 September 2012


: The RAS gene family is among the most studied and best characterized of the known cancer-related genes. Of the three human ras isoforms, KRAS is the most frequently altered gene, with mutations occurring in 17%–25% of all cancers. In particular, approximately 30%–40% of colon cancers harbor a KRAS mutation. KRAS mutations in colon cancers have been associated with poorer survival and increased tumor aggressiveness. Additionally, KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer lead to resistance to select treatment strategies. In this review we examine the history of KRAS, its prognostic value in patients with colorectal cancer, and evidence supporting its predictive value in determining appropriate therapies for patients with colorectal cancer.
KRAS; colorectal cancer; colon cancer; EGFR; Let7; ras; oncogenes

1. Introduction

The RAS oncogene has a well established role in cell growth and regulation; and its protein product affects many cellular functions including cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, fate specification, and differentiation. There are three known human isoforms, NRAS, HRAS, and KRAS. Over 90% of pancreatic adenocarcinomas [1], 30%–50% of colorectal cancers [24], 55% of thyroid cancers [5], 35% of lung cancers [5], and 35% of rhabdomyosarcomas [6] harbor mutated RAS genes. Although HRAS was historically the most studied RAS gene, it is actually the isoform least mutated in human cancers [7]. In fact, KRAS mutations comprise 86% of all RAS mutations [8]. Mutations in KRAS occur with the greatest frequency in all human cancers (21.6%), followed by NRAS (8.0%), and HRAS (3.3%) [8]. KRAS was initially identified in a human lung cancer cell in 1982 and, since then has been shown to be mutated in 35%–50% of all non-small cell lung cancers [9]. Although a common mutation in cancer, KRAS has been difficult to therapeutically target. A better understanding of this gene, as well as its interactions with other genes and mutations, has recently revealed its potential prognostic and predictive roles in tumor aggressiveness and patient outcomes. In this paper we highlight the current state of understanding of KRAS, with a specific emphasis on the role of KRAS in colorectal cancer.

2. History of KRAS

RAS is the name given to a family of related genes that encode a class of 21 kD membrane-bound proteins that bind guanine nucleotides and have intrinsic GTPase activity. The first two RAS genes, HRAS and KRAS, were identified in 1975 from studies of two cancer-causing viruses, the Harvey sarcoma virus and Kirsten sarcoma virus, by Scolnick et al. at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [10]. The human analog of this gene was subsequently discovered in 1982 and has been intensely studied and implicated in the pathogenesis of many cancers. Of the three known human RAS genes, KRAS is most frequently mutated in cancer [7].

The KRAS gene encodes a 188 amino acid protein that has inherent catalytic activity. Post-translation modification of this protein facilitates its localization to the cell membrane. Normally, ras proteins exist in an inactive state in any given cell. All members of the ras family become activated when a nearby transmembrane receptor (e.g., growth factor receptors, G-protein coupled receptors, toll-like receptors, etc.) is bound by its corresponding ligand (Figure 1). The subsequent intracellular signal cascade involves guanine exchange factors (GEF) which facilitate the activation of ras by replacing the inactive GDP with GTP. Once activated, ras leads to the downstream activation of a wide variety of effectors including serine/threonine kinases, GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), and GEFs [11]. Ras is deactivated when the GTP molecule is converted back to a GDP molecule [11]. If KRAS is mutated, it remains in the GTP state. Therefore, KRAS remains in a constitutive GTP-bound state and, thus, regulation of downstream functions is lost (Figure 2). For example, the dysregulated GTP-bound activation of mutant-derived KRAS protein leads to unregulated downstream cell-growth.

A number of reports have investigated the significance of specific KRAS point mutations which typically involve codons 12, 13, 59 or 61 [12,13]. Nearly 97% of all KRAS mutations are localized to codons 12 or 13. As shown in Table 1, point mutations in codon 12 are the most common KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer [1417]. The most frequent change is the transition of GGT to GAT in codon 12 [18]. Specifically, DNA nucleotide mutations involving G→A or G→T, lead to a change in the glycine amino acid in the first or second location. The presence of a glycine residue in codon 12 appears to be critical for the normal function of ras proteins [19,20]. Therefore, single base substitutions that result in the replacement of the glycine amino acid with another amino acid in this location result in the formation of GTPases that are locked in the “on” position.

3. KRAS and Prognosis in Colorectal Cancer

KRAS is perhaps best characterized in colorectal cancer. In 1988, Vogelstein et al. first proposed a model for a sequence of genetic events leading to the development of colorectal cancer [4]. In this model, point mutations in KRAS were described as an early event in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. In fact, KRAS mutations were demonstrated in 50% of adenomas and described as a key genetic alteration necessary for the progression of adenoma to colorectal cancer. Thus, many have hypothesized that development of KRAS mutation is an important role in the multi-step process early in carcinogenesis. Since only 30%–50% of colorectal cancers have KRAS mutations [4,18,21], there has been speculation that the detection of KRAS mutation may portend a worse prognosis. Unfortunately, the reports have been contradictory on the prognostic value of KRAS mutations [15,2230]. There have been discrepancies in these reports because of inconsistencies in defining prognosis. For example, Tanaka et al. reported that KRAS mutation was an independent factor associated with prognosis in a multivariate analysis [23], whereas Dix et al. reported that KRAS mutation was not prognostic in their cohort when predicting short-term survival [27]. Therefore, the primary goal of The Kirsten Ras In-Colorectal-Cancer Collaborative Group (RASCAL) was to definitively determine whether the presence of a KRAS mutation is of prognostic significance. Andreyev et al. clarified in the RASCAL study the association of specific KRAS mutations with patient outcomes and tumor characteristics [17,22]. This study included primary data from 2721 colorectal cancer patients from 22 research groups in 13 different countries [18]. In their multivariate analyses, the presence of KRAS mutation was significantly associated with poorer prognosis [18].

The secondary goal of the RASCAL study was to determine whether select point mutations had prognostic significance. A codon 12 mutation was recorded in 755 (27.7%) patients and codon 13 mutation was identified in 146 patients (6.6%) [18] (Table 1). Of the 723 patients with identified and isolated codon 12 or 13 KRAS mutation, the most common alteration was glycine to aspartate substitution on codon 12 (30.6%; n = 221 of 723), whereas the next most common mutation was glycine to valine on codon 12 (23.4%; n = 169 of 723) [18] (Table 1). There was no difference in the rate of KRAS mutation among different histologic stage, tumor site, gender, geographic location, or age. However, G→A transitions were found more frequently in patients with an anastomotic recurrence (58.2%) than in patients with other types of recurrence [18]. However, progression-free survival was lower and risk of death was increased with the detection of any KRAS mutation [18]. When comparing all of the specific point mutations (Table 1), overall survival was adversely affected by the presence of a glycine to valine amino acid substitution on codon 12 (i.e., C12V) in the RASCAL study [18,21]. Additionally, any G to T transition on codon 12 (which lead to a valine or cysteine amino acid substitution) was an independent marker of both disease-free survival and overall survival. KRAS C12V mutation was the most significantly associated with an adverse outcome [18]. A recent study of 201 patients with advanced colorectal cancer further illustrated a significant difference in progression free survival between patients with codon 12 and 13 mutant tumors treated with chemotherapy [31].

Similarly, in a study of 392 primary colorectal cancer patients in a single institution, Zlobec et al. reported a KRAS mutation in 30.1% of cases [32]. In a univariate analysis, patients with KRAS G12D mutation had poorer prognosis compared to all other patients. Furthermore, the detection of G12D had a significant adverse effect on outcomes when compared to patients with other KRAS mutations [32].

Andreyev et al. subsequently investigated a larger patient population in the RASCAL II study with the goal of evaluating the impact of KRAS mutations on different stages of colorectal cancer [21]. RASCAL II confirmed that a glycine to valine mutation on codon 12 of the KRAS gene has a significant association with biological behavior of colorectal cancer. In particular, this specific mutation was associated with a 50% increased risk of relapse or death in patients with Dukes’ stage C cancer. However, the authors were unable to correlate a similar increased risk in patients with Dukes’ Stage B cancer [21].

KRAS mutations have also been associated with more rapid and aggressive metastatic behavior of colorectal liver metastases. Nash et al. observed that both KRAS mutation and high KI-67 expression were associated with multiple liver metastases, shorter time interval to their detection; and with poor survival after colon resection [33]. Additionally, KRAS mutation was independently associated with poor survival after liver resection [33]. Santini et al. also showed that KRAS C12V mutations were more frequently associated with hepatic metastasis [34]. Further, in a recent study of 143 Korean patients with metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer, lung metastasis was more frequently the initial metastatic site in patients with the KRAS mutations [35].

4. KRAS Mutations and Response to Therapy

4.1. KRAS and EGFR

As expected, an improved response to therapy correlates with more favorable outcomes. In metastatic colorectal cancer, increased response rates to treatment are associated with improvements in progression free survival and overall survival [36]. However, the detection of KRAS mutations has been associated with decreased response rates to select chemotherapeutic agents. Therefore, KRAS mutational status is a critical factor when considering the use of targeted therapies. The association of KRAS gene mutation and response to therapy was first reported in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, who were treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. Lievre et al. first reported the link between KRAS gene mutation and decreased response to anti-EGFR agents [37]. Additionally, they noted in a retrospective analysis that patients with wild-type KRAS had better overall survival compared to patients harboring mutant KRAS [37]. Given that EGFR, a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase, is overexpressed in 25%–75% of colorectal tumors [38,39], a significant proportion of patients that may benefit from anti-EGFR agents may also have KRAS mutation. Similar to KRAS mutations, EGFR overexpression has also been linked to poor prognosis and increased risk of metastasis in colorectal cancer and, therefore, represents a promising therapeutic target [40,41]. Upon activation of EGFR, K-RAS is activated downstream [42] and results in downstream signaling through the PI3K and extracellular signal regulated kinase (ERK) pathways [42] (Figures 2 and 3). Thus, K-Ras is a critical mediator of EGFR-induced signaling cascades (Figure 3). Accordingly, other alterations in the mediators of the EGFR pathway (e.g., mutation of BRAF, PTEN, PIK3CA, etc.) could further modify the response to anti-EGFR therapies [4346].

Numerous EGFR blockers have been investigated to date. Unfortunately, resistance to anti-EGFR therapies has been observed in patients with KRAS mutation. The recent OPUS and CRYSTAL trials examined the addition of an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab, to first-line FOLFOX (leucovorin, 5-flurouracil [5-FU], oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (leucovorin, 5-FU, irinotecan) chemotherapy and illustrated that the addition of anti-EGFR agents did not improve response in patients with mutant KRAS and may, in fact, be detrimental [4346]. Two other recent large randomized prospective studies have further demonstrated the effect of KRAS mutation on response to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies cetuximab or panitumumab [47,48].

Not all specific point mutations in KRAS may underlie the resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. De Roock et al. demonstrated in a pooled analysis of 579 patients compiled from seven clinical trials examining metastatic colorectal cancer patients, that patients overall with KRAS mutation had decreased survival but those with KRAS G13D mutation had better overall survival and progression-free survival after treatment with cetuximab compared to other KRAS mutant tumors [49]. Conversely, KRAS G13D mutation has also been associated with worse overall survival compared to patients with other KRAS mutations or wild-type KRAS [49,50]. Interestingly, Tejpar et al. reported in a pooled analysis of 533 metastatic colorectal cancer patients from the CRYSTAL and OPUS trials that patients with KRAS G13D mutation had a poorer response to first-line chemotherapy compared to other KRAS mutations and wild-type KRAS. However, they also noted that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy may benefit patients with KRAS G13D mutation [51,52].

4.2. KRAS and BRAF

Several retrospective studies have indicated that the mutation status of BRAF may also be predictive of response to anti-EGFR therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer [49,53,54]. Downstream from Ras, there are 3 different Raf kinases: A-Raf, B-Raf and C-Raf. The best characterized and studied in tumorigenesis is B-Raf. In sporadic colorectal cancers, up to 15.7% of colorectal cancers have a BRAF mutation [55]. After binding and activation by GTP, ras recruits B-Raf; this phosphorylates ERK, thereby initiating ERK/MAPK signaling leading to gene expression (Figure 3). Interestingly, BRAF mutations, which are predominantly mutually exclusive of mutant KRAS, have also been associated with resistance to anti-EGFR treatment in colorectal cancer [53,55]. In the OPUS study, BRAF mutations were detected in only 4% (11 of 309) of the tumor specimens and all of these specimens harbored wild-type KRAS. Given the small sample size, no definitive conclusions could be reached about prognosis [43,46]. Similarly, 6% (60 of 999) of tumor samples in the CRYSTAL study had a BRAF mutation, mainly in the setting of wild-type KRAS [44,45]. Interestingly, 1 patient had KRAS mutation and BRAF mutation; and, therefore, the effect of both mutations could not be assessed. The presence of BRAF mutation in this study correlated with poor prognosis and worse outcomes when compared to tumors with wild-type BRAF [44,45].

4.3. KRAS Mutations in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer

Radiation therapy is a mainstay in the management of patients with rectal cancer. It is well established that more than 2/3 of patients derive some form of tumor downstaging with radiation therapy [56,57]. Furthermore, up to 25% of these patients may have complete eradication of their tumors or achieve a pathologic complete response (pCR) [58]. KRAS mutation status appears to influence response to therapy in patients with locally advanced primary rectal cancer. In a retrospective study examining 146 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, Bengala et al. demonstrated that patients with mutated KRAS had a decreased rate of complete response to concomitant chemoradiation with continuous infusion of 5-FU with or without oxaliplatin or capecitabine compared to wild-type patients (7.4% vs. 19.2%) [59]. However, the overall rate of complete response was low (14.4%) and the difference in rate of complete response was not found to be significant between KRAS wild-type and mutant patients. In our own prospective multicenter study of a 132 rectal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy (NCRT), we determined that KRAS mutations were more common in non-pathologic complete response (non-pCR) patients compared to patients with a pCR (49% vs. 24%, p = 0.014) [60].

4.4. miRNA and KRAS Interactions

KRAS mutations may prove both predictive of treatment efficacy and prognostic for patient outcomes; however, effective and optimized KRAS silencing therapeutic strategies remain to be developed [61]. The prevalence of KRAS mutations in a variety of cancers underscores the promise that targeting KRAS may have in treating cancer. Recent studies suggest that use of microRNAs (miRNA) which target KRAS may be a way to stop the aberrant activation of this protein.

miRNAs are 20–25 nucleotide long sequences of endogenous non-coding RNA which bind to the 3′-untranslated regions (UTRs) of their corresponding target messenger RNAs (mRNAs) to regulate gene expression [62,63]. miRNAs block transcription if they show perfect complementarity to the mRNA target, or block translation if there is partial complementarity [64]. In the search for novel strategies in the treatment of colon cancer, miRNAs have received attention for their role in controlling gene expression [65]. The complexity of miRNA regulation of gene expression lies in the ability of one single miRNA to have oncogenic or tumor-suppressive effects on more than one pathway [66]. In addition, miRNA expression is often lost in cancer because they tend to be located in genomic regions that are frequently lost during cancer development [67]. Some of the better understood miRNAs that play a role in cell proliferation in colorectal cancer are lethal-7 (let-7) and miR-143 [64,66,68,69]. These deregulated miRNAs have been associated with cell proliferation and have been investigated for their interactions with KRAS [66].

4.5. let-7 miRNA and KRAS

Several studies have demonstrated that the family of let-7 miRNAs is an important regulator of KRAS [66,70] (Figure 2). The family of RAS genes has several let-7 complementary sites at the 3′-UTR, enabling let-7 miRNA to bind to and regulate KRAS gene expression [70]. The reduced expression of let-7 in cancer tissues corresponds to significantly higher levels of KRAS mRNA [70]. Johnson et al. reported that ras protein levels were decreased up to 70% in both hepatocellular carcinoma cells and cervical cancer cells treated with let-7 miRNA [70]. In addition to the important mechanistic role of let-7 miRNA in post-transcriptional regulation of KRAS gene expression, decreased let-7 miRNA expression has been associated with worse patient outcomes in lung cancer [71] and may also affect radiosensitivity. In a lung cancer model, Jeong et al. reported that the overexpression of let-7 miRNA inhibited translation of KRAS and subsequently increased the sensitivity of cells to ionizing radiation [72].

There is growing focus on elucidating the role of let-7 miRNA in colon cancer, since it may be a KRAS-driven cancer. Akao et al. recently showed that let-7 miRNA may have a suppressive effect on growth and proliferation in human colon cancer cells [73]. In DLD-1 human colon cancer cells, which have low endogenous levels of let-7, transfection with the let-7a precursor miRNA significantly abrogated growth potential and concomitantly decreased the levels of ras and c-MYC proteins [73]. In an analysis of human non-metastatic colon cancers, expression of an upstream repressor of let-7, LIN28B, was associated with poorer patient survival [74,75]. Using an in vivo model, King et al. also showed that LIN28B+ tumors, which have repressed let-7, have increased metastases and stem cell markers that can sustain cancerous growth [74].

It has been shown that a T→G single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the let-7 complementarity site on the KRAS UTR causes decreased binding of let-7 to KRAS which in turn leads to increased KRAS expression. In metastatic colon cancer patients harboring a KRAS mutation, the presence of this variant led to decreased progression-free and as well as decreased overall survival [76]. Further research is required to determine more precisely how let-7 is regulated and if its expression or the expression of its repressor(s) can be used to target KRAS-driven cancers.

4.6. miR-143 and KRAS

miR-143 is one of the most downregulated miRNAs in colorectal cancer samples compared to normal adjacent tissue specimens [69,77]. Like let-7 miRNA, miR-143 has been implicated in colorectal cancer as a link to KRAS-driven carcinogenesis [64,68,69,77,78] and is shown to bind to the 3′-UTR of the KRAS gene [77]. The role of miR-143 as a tumor suppressor was demonstrated through the ability of miR-143 inhibition to increase KRAS protein levels and cell proliferation in vitro [77]. Conversely, treating cells with a miR-143 mimic or overexpressing miR-143 in colorectal cancer cells, knocked down expression of KRAS, decreased activation of ERK1/2, and blocked cell proliferation [69,77]. In addition to antagonizing cell survival, miR-143 has also been shown to increase chemosensitivity to 5-FU in vitro [79]. miR-143 expression has been identified as an independent predictor of patient survival. Colorectal cancer patients with low levels of miR-143 expression had a significantly higher risk of having shorter cancer-specific survival and progression-free survival [78]. Taken together, the literature on let-7 and miR-143 miRNAs in colon cancer highlights the potential that miRNA-based therapies may have in targeting KRAS-driven colorectal cancers.

5. Synthetic Lethality

Another approach to targeting oncogenic KRAS is synthetic lethality, a phenomenon in which a combination of two or more gene mutations leads to cell death, but a mutation in one of those genes alone does not compromise cell viability [80]. The clinical significance of this approach lies in the ability to create better therapeutic options by increasing cytotoxic specificity against cancer cells without the toxicities associated with current chemotherapy. This also opens up the potential to target mutant KRAS-driven cancers, which thus far have no effective therapeutics. In a genome-wide screen, Luo et al. identified several genes in the mitotic pathway that have synthetic lethal interactions with KRAS [81]. In that study several potential targets for developing RNAi-based therapies or small molecule inhibitors against these synthetic lethal genes were uncovered. The complexity of synthetic lethal interactions with KRAS underscores the complications of regulating KRAS expression and activity.

6. Conclusion

KRAS mutations and their implications in cancer development have been studied for over 40 years. Colorectal cancer has the second highest prevalence of KRAS mutations and understanding the factors that regulate KRAS expression may lead to future effective therapeutic strategy. As shown with this review, KRAS mutations have a significant impact on colorectal cancer and the treatment strategies against it. While directly targeting KRAS seems to be a promising approach, KRAS inhibitors remain to be developed. By better understanding interactions between KRAS and other genes, we may then take advantage of these synthetic lethal combinations to provide additional options to treat chemotherapy-or cetuximab-refractory colorectal cancer patients harboring KRAS mutations. Knowledge of these synthetic lethal interactions may also enable the development of improved targeted therapies that may be more effective without the toxicities of traditional chemotherapy due to off-target killing of normal cells. Continued prospective studies and basic science research is critical in the effort to improve outcomes in colorectal cancer patients with this mutation.


  1. Almoguera, C.; Shibata, D.; Forrester, K.; Martin, J.; Arnheim, N.; Perucho, M. Most human carcinomas of the exocrine pancreas contain mutant C-K-Ras genes. Cell 1988, 53, 549–554. [Google Scholar]
  2. De Roock, W.; Piessevaux, H.; de Schutter, J.; Janssens, M.; de Hertogh, G.; Personeni, N.; Biesmans, B.; van Laethem, J.L.; Peeters, M.; Humblet, Y.; et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann. Oncol 2008, 19, 508–515. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bell, S.M.; Scott, N.; Cross, D.; Sagar, P.; Lewis, F.A.; Blair, G.E.; Taylor, G.R.; Dixon, M.F.; Quirke, P. Prognostic value of p53 overexpression and c-Ki-ras gene mutations in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 1993, 104, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  4. Vogelstein, B.; Fearon, E.R.; Hamilton, S.R.; Kern, S.E.; Preisinger, A.C.; Leppert, M.; Nakamura, Y.; White, R.; Smits, A.M.; Bos, J.L. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N. Engl. J. Med 1988, 319, 525–532. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kranenburg, O. The KRAS oncogene: Past, present, and future. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2005, 1756, 81–82. [Google Scholar]
  6. Stratton, M.R.; Fisher, C.; Gusterson, B.A.; Cooper, C.S. Detection of point mutations in n-ras and k-ras genes of human embryonal rhabdomyosarcomas using oligonucleotide probes and the polymerase chain-reaction. Cancer Res 1989, 49, 6324–6327. [Google Scholar]
  7. Baines, A.T.; Xu, D.; Der, C.J. Inhibition of Ras for cancer treatment: The search continues. Future Med. Chem 2011, 3, 1787–1808. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bamford, S.; Dawson, E.; Forbes, S.; Clements, J.; Pettett, R.; Dogan, A.; Flanagan, A.; Teague, J.; Futreal, P.A.; Stratton, M.R.; et al. The COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer) database and website. Br. J. Cancer 2004, 91, 355–358. [Google Scholar]
  9. Rodenhuis, S.; Slebos, R.J.; Boot, A.J.; Evers, S.G.; Mooi, W.J.; Wagenaar, S.S.; van Bodegom, P.C.; Bos, J.L. Incidence and possible clinical significance of K-ras oncogene activation in adenocarcinoma of the human lung. Cancer Res 1988, 48, 5738–5741. [Google Scholar]
  10. Malumbres, M.; Barbacid, M. RAS oncogenes: The first 30 years. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2003, 3, 459–465. [Google Scholar]
  11. Shields, J.M.; Pruitt, K.; McFall, A.; Shaub, A.; Der, C.J. Understanding Ras: ‘it ain’t over ‘til it’s over’. Trends Cell Biol 2000, 10, 147–154. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bos, J.L.; Fearon, E.R.; Hamilton, S.R.; Verlaan-de Vries, M.; van Boom, J.H.; van der Eb, A.J.; Vogelstein, B. Prevalence of ras gene mutations in human colorectal cancers. Nature 1987, 327, 293–297. [Google Scholar]
  13. Forrester, K.; Almoguera, C.; Han, K.; Grizzle, W.E.; Perucho, M. Detection of high incidence of K-ras oncogenes during human colon tumorigenesis. Nature 1987, 327, 298–303. [Google Scholar]
  14. Capella, G.; Cronauer-Mitra, S.; Pienado, M.A.; Perucho, M. Frequency and spectrum of mutations at codons 12 and 13 of the c-K-ras gene in human tumors. Environ. Health Perspect 1991, 93, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  15. Oudejans, J.J.; Slebos, R.J.C.; Zoetmulder, F.A.N.; Mooi, W.J.; Rodenhuis, S. Differential activation of ras genes by point mutation in human colon cancer with metastases to either lung or liver. Int. J. Cancer 1991, 49, 875–879. [Google Scholar]
  16. Burmer, G.C.; Loeb, L.A. Mutations in the KRAS2 oncogene during progressive stages of human colon carcinoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1989, 86, 2403–2407. [Google Scholar]
  17. Finkelstein, S.D.; Sayegh, R.; Christensen, S.; Swalsky, P.A. Genotypic classification of colorectal adenocarcinoma-biologic behavior correlates with K-Ras-2 mutation type. Cancer 1993, 71, 3827–3838. [Google Scholar]
  18. Andreyev, H.J.; Norman, A.R.; Cunningham, D.; Oates, J.R.; Clarke, P.A. Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: The multicenter “RASCAL” study. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 1998, 90, 675–684. [Google Scholar]
  19. Seeburg, P.H.; Colby, W.W.; Capon, D.J.; Goeddel, D.V.; Levinson, A.D. Biological properties of human c-Ha-ras1 genes mutated at codon 12. Nature 1984, 312, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  20. Chipperfield, R.G.; Jones, S.S.; Lo, K.M.; Weinberg, R.A. Activation of Ha-ras p21 by substitution, deletion, and insertion mutations. Mol. Cell Biol 1985, 5, 1809–1813. [Google Scholar]
  21. Andreyev, H.J.; Norman, A.R.; Cunningham, D.; Oates, J.; Dix, B.R.; Iacopetta, B.J.; Young, J.; Walsh, T.; Ward, R.; Hawkins, N.; et al. Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: The “RASCAL II” study. Br. J. Cancer 2001, 85, 692–696. [Google Scholar]
  22. Suchy, B.; Zietz, C.; Rabes, H.M. K-ras point mutations in human colorectal carcinomas: Relation to aneuploidy and metastasis. Int. J. Cancer 1992, 52, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tanaka, M.; Omura, K.; Watanabe, Y.; Oda, Y.; Nakanishi, I. Prognostic factors of colorectal-cancer - k-ras mutation, overexpression of the P53-protein, and cell proliferative activity. J. Surg. Oncol 1994, 57, 57–64. [Google Scholar]
  24. Pricolo, V.E.; Finkelstein, S.D.; Wu, T.T.; Keller, G.; Bakker, A.; Swalsky, P.A.; Bland, K.I. Prognostic value of TP53 and K-ras-2 mutational analysis in stage III carcinoma of the colon. Am. J. Surg 1996, 171, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  25. Troungos, C.; Valavanis, C.; Kapranos, N.; Kittas, C. K-ras mutation in Greek patients with poorly and moderately differenciated tumours of the lower intestinal tract. Anticancer Res 1997, 17, 1399–1404. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rochlitz, C.F.; Heide, I.; Dekant, E.; Bohmer, R.; Peter, F.J.; Neuhaus, P.; Huhn, D.; Herrmann, R. Position specificity of ki-ras oncogene mutations during the progression of colorectal-carcinoma. Oncology 1993, 50, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dix, B.R.; Robbins, P.; Soong, R.; Jenner, D.; House, A.K.; Iacopetta, B.J. The common molecular genetic alterations in Dukes’ B and C colorectal carcinomas are not short-term prognostic indicators of survival. Int. J. Cancer 1994, 59, 747–751. [Google Scholar]
  28. Morrin, M.; Kelly, M.; Barrett, N.; Delaney, P. Mutations of ki-ras and p53 genes in colorectal-cancer and their prognostic-significance. Gut 1994, 35, 1627–1631. [Google Scholar]
  29. Laurent-Puig, P.; Olschwang, S.; Delattre, O.; Remvikos, Y.; Asselain, B.; Melot, T.; Validire, P.; Muleris, M.; Girodet, J.; Salmon, R.J.; et al. Survival and acquired genetic alterations in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 1992, 102, 1136–1141. [Google Scholar]
  30. Inoue, Y.; Saigusa, S.; Iwata, T.; Okugawa, Y.; Toiyama, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Uchida, K.; Mohri, Y.; Kusunoki, M. The prognostic value of KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncol. Rep 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Reinacher-Schick, A.; Schulmann, K.; Modest, D.; Bruns, N.; Graeven, U.; Jaworska, M.; Greil, R.; Porschen, R.; Arnold, D.; Schmiegel, W.; et al. Effect of KRAS codon13 mutations in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (advanced CRC) under oxaliplatin containing chemotherapy. Results from a translational study of the AIO colorectal study group. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 349. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zlobec, I.; Kovac, M.; Erzberger, P.; Molinari, F.; Bihl, M.P.; Rufle, A.; Foerster, A.; Frattini, M.; Terracciano, L.; Heinimann, K.; et al. Combined analysis of specific KRAS mutation, BRAF and microsatellite instability indentifies prognostic subgroups of sporadic and hereditary colorectal cancer. Int. J. Cancer 2010, 127, 2569–2575. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nash, G.M.; Gimbel, M.; Shia, J.; Nathanson, D.R.; Ndubuisi, M.I.; Zeng, Z.S.; Kemeny, N.; Paty, P.B. KRAS mutation correlates with accelerated metastatic progression in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol 2010, 17, 572–578. [Google Scholar]
  34. Santini, D.; Loupakis, F.; Vincenzi, B.; Floriani, I.; Stasi, I.; Canestrari, E.; Rulli, E.; Maltese, P.E.; Andreoni, F.; Masi, G.; et al. High concordance of KRAS status between primary colorectal tumors and related metastatic sites: Implications for clinical practice. Oncologist 2008, 13, 1270–1275. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, M.J.; Lee, H.S.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y.J.; Kwon, J.H.; Lee, J.O.; Bang, S.M.; Park, K.U.; Kim, D.W.; Kang, S.B.; et al. Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2012, 12, 347. [Google Scholar]
  36. Louvet, C.; de Gramont, A.; Tournigand, C.; Artru, P.; Maindrault-Goebel, F.; Krulik, M. Correlation between progression free survival and response rate in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2001, 91, 2033–2038. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lievre, A.; Bachet, J.; Le Corre, D.; Boige, V.; Landi, B.; Emile, J.; Cote, J.; Tomasic, G.; Penna, C.; Ducreux, M.; et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 2006, 66, 3992–3995. [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldstein, N.S.; Armin, M. Epidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemical reactivity in patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer Stage IV colon adenocarcinoma: Implications for a standardized scoring system. Cancer 2001, 92, 1331–1346. [Google Scholar]
  39. Salomon, D.S.; Brandt, R.; Ciardiello, F.; Normanno, N. Epidermal Growth Factor-Related Peptides and Their Receptors in Human Malignancies. Crit. Rev. Oncol./Hematol 1995, 19, 183–232. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hemming, A.W.; Davis, N.L.; Kluftinger, A.; Robinson, B.; Quenville, N.F.; Liseman, B.; LeRiche, J. Prognostic markers of colorectal cancer: An evaluation of DNA content, epidermal growth factor receptor, and Ki-67. J. Surg. Oncol 1992, 51, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mayer, A.; Takimoto, M.; Fritz, E.; Schellander, G.; Kofler, K.; Ludwig, H. The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, epidermal growth factor receptor, and mdr gene expression in colorectal cancer. Cancer 1993, 71, 2454–2460. [Google Scholar]
  42. Normanno, N.; Tejpar, S.; Morgillo, F.; de Luca, A.; van Cutsem, E.; Ciardiello, F. Implications for KRAS status and EGFR-targeted therapies in metastatic CRC. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol 2009, 6, 519–527. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bokemeyer, C.; Bondarenko, I.; Hartmann, J.T.; de Braud, F.; Schuch, G.; Zubel, A.; Celik, I.; Schlichting, M.; Koralewski, P. Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: The OPUS study. Ann. Oncol 2011, 22, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Cutsem, E.; Kohne, C.H.; Hitre, E.; Zaluski, J.; Chien, C.R.C.; Makhson, A.; D’Haens, G.; Pinter, T.; Lim, R.; Bodoky, G.; et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med 2009, 360, 1408–1417. [Google Scholar]
  45. Van Cutsem, E.; Kohne, C.H.; Lang, I.; Folprecht, G.; Nowacki, M.P.; Cascinu, S.; Shchepotin, I.; Maurel, J.; Cunningham, D.; Tejpar, S.; et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: Updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J. Clin. Oncol 2011, 29, 2011–2019. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bokemeyer, C.; Bondarenko, I.; Makhson, A.; Hartmann, J.T.; Aparicio, J.; de Braud, F.; Donea, S.; Ludwig, H.; et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol 2009, 27, 663–671. [Google Scholar]
  47. Amado, R.G.; Wolf, M.; Peeters, M.; van Cutsem, E.; Siena, S.; Freeman, D.J.; Juan, T.; Sikorski, R.; Suggs, S.; Radinsky, R.; et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol 2008, 26, 1626–1634. [Google Scholar]
  48. Karapetis, C.S.; Khambata-Ford, S.; Jonker, D.J.; O’Callaghan, C.J.; Tu, D.; Tebbutt, N.C.; Simes, R.J.; Chalchal, H.; Shapiro, J.D.; Robitaille, S.; et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med 2008, 359, 1757–1765. [Google Scholar]
  49. De Roock, W.; Claes, B.; Bernasconi, D.; de Schutter, J.; Biesmans, B.; Fountzilas, G.; Kalogeras, K.T.; Kotoula, V.; Papamichael, D.; Laurent-Puig, P.; et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11, 753–762. [Google Scholar]
  50. De Roock, W.; Jonker, D.J.; di Nicolantonio, F.; Sartore-Bianchi, A.; Tu, D.; Siena, S.; Lamba, S.; Arena, S.; Frattini, M.; Piessevaux, H.; et al. Association of KRAS p.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA 2010, 304, 1812–1820. [Google Scholar]
  51. Tejpar, S.; Celik, I.; Schlichting, M.; Sartorius, U.; Bokemeyer, C.; van Cutsem, E. Association of KRAS G13D tumor mutations with outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Tejpar, S.; Bokemeyer, C.; Celik, I.; Schlichting, M.; Heeger, S.; van Cutsem, E. Kras mutations and outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Ann. Oncol 2011, 22, v16–v17. [Google Scholar]
  53. Di Nicolantonio, F.; Martini, M.; Molinari, F.; Sartore-Bianchi, A.; Arena, S.; Saletti, P.; de Dosso, S.; Mazzucchelli, L.; Frattini, M.; Siena, S.; et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol 2008, 26, 5705–5712. [Google Scholar]
  54. Siena, S.; Sartore-Bianchi, A.; di Nicolantonio, F.; Balfour, J.; Bardelli, A. Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst 2009, 101, 1308–1324. [Google Scholar]
  55. Vaughn, C.P.; Zobell, S.D.; Furtado, L.V.; Baker, C.L.; Samowitz, W.S. Frequency of KRAS, BRAF, and NRAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosom. Cancer 2011, 50, 307–312. [Google Scholar]
  56. Bosset, J.F.; Collette, L.; Calais, G.; Mineur, L.; Maingon, P.; Radosevic-Jelic, L.; Daban, A.; Bardet, E.; Beny, A.; Ollier, J.C. Chemotherapy with preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med 2006, 355, 1114–1123. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bosset, J.F.; Pavy, J.J.; Hamers, H.P.; Horiot, J.C.; Fabri, M.C.; Rougier, P.; Eschwege, F.; Schraub, S. Determination of the optimal dose of 5-fluorouracil when combined with low dose D,L-leucovorin and irradiation in rectal cancer: Results of three consecutive phase II studies. Eur. J. Cancer 1993, 29A, 1406–1410. [Google Scholar]
  58. Maas, M.; Nelemans, P.J.; Valentini, V.; Das, P.; Rodel, C.; Kuo, L.J.; Calvo, F.A.; Garcia-Aguilar, J.; Glynne-Jones, R.; Haustermans, K.; et al. Long-term outcome in patients with a pathological complete response after chemoradiation for rectal cancer: A pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11, 835–844. [Google Scholar]
  59. Bengala, C.; Bettelli, S.; Bertolini, F.; Sartori, G.; Fontana, A.; Malavasi, N.; Depenni, R.; Zironi, S.; Del Giovane, C.; Luppi, G.; et al. Prognostic role of EGFR gene copy number and KRAS mutation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 2010, 103, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar]
  60. Duldulao, M.P.; Lee, W.; Chen, Z.; Li, W.; Nelson, R.A.; Kim, J.; Garcia-Aguilar, J. Use of KRAS codon 13 mutations predict response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in patients with rectal adenocarcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol 2012, 19, S21–S22. [Google Scholar]
  61. Yu, S.N.; Lu, Z.H.; Liu, C.Z.; Meng, Y.X.; Ma, Y.H.; Zhao, W.G.; Liu, J.P.; Yu, J.; Chen, J. miRNA-96 suppresses KRAS and functions as a tumor suppressor gene in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Res 2010, 70, 6015–6025. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ambros, V. microRNAs: Tiny regulators with great potential. Cell 2001, 107, 823–826. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ambros, V. The function of animal microRNAs. Nature 2004, 431, 350–355. [Google Scholar]
  64. Slaby, O.; Svoboda, M.; Fabian, P.; Smerdova, T.; Knoflickova, D.; Bednarikova, M.; Nenutil, R.; Vyzula, R. Altered expression of miR-21, miR-31, miR-143 and miR-145 is related to clinicopathologic features of colorectal cancer. Oncology 2007, 72, 397–402. [Google Scholar]
  65. Lea, M.A. Recently identified and potential targets for colon cancer treatment. Futur. Oncol 2010, 6, 993–1002. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wu, W.K.; Law, P.T.; Lee, C.W.; Cho, C.H.; Fan, D.; Wu, K.; Yu, J.; Sung, J.J. MicroRNA in colorectal cancer: From benchtop to bedside. Carcinogenesis 2011, 32, 247–253. [Google Scholar]
  67. Calin, G.A.; Sevignani, C.; Dan Dumitru, C.; Hyslop, T.; Noch, E.; Yendamuri, S.; Shimizu, M.; Rattan, S.; Bullrich, F.; Negrini, M.; et al. Human microRNA genes are frequently located at fragile sites and genomic regions involved in cancers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 2999–3004. [Google Scholar]
  68. Earle, J.S.; Luthra, R.; Romans, A.; Abraham, R.; Ensor, J.; Yao, H.; Hamilton, S.R. Association of microRNA expression with microsatellite instability status in colorectal adenocarcinoma. J. Mol. Diagn 2010, 12, 433–440. [Google Scholar]
  69. Akao, Y.; Nakagawa, Y.; Hirata, I.; Iio, A.; Itoh, T.; Kojima, K.; Nakashima, R.; Kitade, Y.; Naoe, T. Role of anti-oncomirs miR-143 and -145 in human colorectal tumors. Cancer Gene Ther 2010, 17, 398–408. [Google Scholar]
  70. Johnson, S.M.; Grosshans, H.; Shingara, J.; Byrom, M.; Jarvis, R.; Cheng, A.; Labourier, E.; Reinert, K.L.; Brown, D.; Slack, F.J. RAS is regulated by the let-7 MicroRNA family. Cell 2005, 120, 635–647. [Google Scholar]
  71. Takamizawa, J.; Konishi, H.; Yanagisawa, K.; Tomida, S.; Osada, H.; Endoh, H.; Harano, T.; Yatabe, Y.; Nagino, M.; Nimura, Y.; et al. Reduced expression of the let-7 microRNAs in human lung cancers in association with shortened postoperative survival. Cancer Res 2004, 64, 3753–3756. [Google Scholar]
  72. Jeong, S.H.; Wu, H.G.; Park, W.Y. LIN28B confers radio-resistance through the posttranscriptional control of KRAS. Exp. Mol. Med 2009, 41, 912–918. [Google Scholar]
  73. Akao, Y.; Nakagawa, Y.; Naoe, T. let-7 microRNA functions as a potential growth suppressor in human colon cancer cells. Biol. Pharm. Bull 2006, 29, 903–906. [Google Scholar]
  74. King, C.E.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Castells, A.; Sepulveda, A.R.; Lee, J.S.; Rustgi, A.K. LIN28B promotes colon cancer progression and metastasis. Cancer Res 2011, 71, 4260–4268. [Google Scholar]
  75. King, C.E.; Wang, L.; Winograd, R.; Madison, B.B.; Mongroo, P.S.; Johnstone, C.N.; Rustgi, A.K. LIN28B fosters colon cancer migration, invasion and transformation through let-7-dependent and -independent mechanisms. Oncogene 2011, 30, 4185–4193. [Google Scholar]
  76. Graziano, F.; Canestrari, E.; Loupakis, F.; Ruzzo, A.; Galluccio, N.; Santini, D.; Rocchi, M.; Vincenzi, B.; Salvatore, L.; Cremolini, C.; et al. Genetic modulation of the Let-7 microRNA binding to KRAS 3′-untranslated region and survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with salvage cetuximab-irinotecan. Pharmacogn. J. 10 458–464.
  77. Chen, X.; Guo, X.; Zhang, H.; Xiang, Y.; Chen, J.; Yin, Y.; Cai, X.; Wang, K.; Wang, G.; Ba, Y.; et al. Role of miR-143 targeting KRAS in colorectal tumorigenesis. Oncogene 2009, 28, 1385–1392. [Google Scholar]
  78. Pichler, M.; Winter, E.; Stotz, M.; Eberhard, K.; Samonigg, H.; Lax, S.; Hoefler, G. Down-regulation of KRAS-interacting miRNA-143 predicts poor prognosis but not response to EGFR-targeted agents in colorectal cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2012, 106, 1826–1832. [Google Scholar]
  79. Borralho, P.M.; Kren, B.T.; Castro, R.E.; da Silva, I.B.; Steer, C.J.; Rodrigues, C.M. MicroRNA-143 reduces viability and increases sensitivity to 5-fluorouracil in HCT116 human colorectal cancer cells. FEBS J 2009, 276, 6689–6700. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kaelin, W.G., Jr. The concept of synthetic lethality in the context of anticancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2005, 5, 689–698. [Google Scholar]
  81. Luo, J.; Emanuele, M.J.; Li, D.; Creighton, C.J.; Schlabach, M.R.; Westbrook, T.F.; Wong, K.K.; Elledge, S.J. A genome-wide RNAi screen identifies multiple synthetic lethal interactions with the Ras oncogene. Cell 2009, 137, 835–848. [Google Scholar]
Ijms 13 12153f1 1024
Figure 1. The Ras Activation Cascade.

Click here to enlarge figure

Figure 1. The Ras Activation Cascade.
Ijms 13 12153f1 1024
Ijms 13 12153f2 1024
Figure 2. Constitutional Activation of KRAS.

Click here to enlarge figure

Figure 2. Constitutional Activation of KRAS.
Ijms 13 12153f2 1024
Ijms 13 12153f3 1024
Figure 3. EGFR Signaling and KRAS/BRAF Interaction.

Click here to enlarge figure

Figure 3. EGFR Signaling and KRAS/BRAF Interaction.
Ijms 13 12153f3 1024
Table Table 1. Types of KRAS mutations.

Click here to display table

Table 1. Types of KRAS mutations.
KRAS mutations at codons 12 and 13 from RASCAL and RASCAL II studies

Mutation% of specific codon mutations% of all codon 12/13 mutations

Codon 12RASCAL
I [18]
II [21]
I [18]
II [21]
Glycine (GGT)→Serine (AGT)7.5%8.3%6.8%6.2%
Glycine (GGT)→Aspartate (GAT)31.5%39.3%28.5%39.6%
Glycine (GGT)→Cysteine (TGT)8.9%10.2%8.0%7.7%
Glycine (GGT)→Valine (GGT)24.2%33.3%21.9%25.8%
Glycine (GGT)→Arginine (CGT)3.8%3.5%
Glycine (GGT)→Alanine (GCT)6.2%8.8%5.6%6.6%
Codon 12, unknown Point Mutation17.8%16.0%
Codon 13
Glycine (GGT)→Aspartate (GAC)83.9%100%14.5%24.8%
Glycine (GGT)→Cysteine (TGC)6.8%1.2%
Glycine (GGT)→Valine (GTC)2.1%0.4%
Glycine (GGT)→Arginine (CGC)0.7%0.1%
Glycine (GGT)→Alanine (GCC)2.1%0.4%
Codon 13, unknown Point Mutation5.5%1.0%
% of Colorectal Cancer Patients with KRAS mutation37.7%34.8%
Int. J. Mol. Sci. EISSN 1422-0067 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert