Abstract Although KRASG12C-specific inhibitors have been introduced, no approved targeted therapies exist for other clinically significant KRAS mutants, including KRASG12D and KRASG12V. We discovered BBO-11818, a potent, selective, orally bioavailable noncovalent pan-KRAS inhibitor capable of targeting multiple KRAS mutants in both the inactive GDP-bound (OFF) and active GTP-bound (ON) states. BBO-11818 binds in the Switch-II/Helix 3 pocket, inducing conformational changes incompatible with effector binding, and demonstrates high-affinity binding to mutant KRAS with strong selectivity over NRAS and HRAS. BBO-11818 potently inhibited MAPK signaling and cellular viability specifically in KRAS-driven lines and produced tumor regressions in KRAS-mutant xenograft models. Combination studies with anti–PD-1, anti-EGFR antibodies, and a RAS:PI3Kα breaker compound showed enhanced efficacy. BBO-11818 has entered phase I clinical trials for patients with various KRAS mutations in colorectal, pancreatic, and lung cancers (NCT06917079). Significance: We discovered BBO-11818, a potent and selective noncovalent KRAS inhibitor with activity against multiple KRAS mutants in both the active (ON) and inactive (OFF) states. BBO-11818 addresses the need for KRAS inhibitors targeting clinically relevant mutants such as KRASG12D and KRASG12V, either as monotherapy or in combination.

Supplementary Figure S6 shows that BBO-8520 shows anti-tumor activity in NCI-H358 CDX sotorasib-resistant tumors

Supplementary Figure S4 summarizes cysteine profiling, RNA-seq and kinomescan studies demonstrating that BBO-8520 is selective for KRAS G12C and MAPK inhibition.

Supplementary Table S2 summarizes the potency of BBO-8520, sotorasib, adagrasib and RMC-6291 on pERK and viability in a panel of KRAS mutant, wild type and BRAF V600E mutant cell lines

Supplementary Figure S6 shows densitometry analysis for pERK and pAKT in a western blot experiment in KRASG12D and KRASG12D/A59G cells treated with BBO-11818 or DMSO.

Supplementary Figure S2 shows the electron density map for BBO-8520 bound to KRAS G12C in the GDP and GppNHp states

Supplementary Figure S8 shows mean body weight and survival upon rechallenge in a KRASG12D syngeneic model treated with the combination of BBO-11818 and anti–PD-1 antibody. In addition, it shows mean body weight and mean tumor volume in KRASG12V and KRASG12D CDX models treated with BBO-11818 and BBO-10203 or BBO-11818 and cetuximab.

Supplementary Figure S1 shows the Kinact/KI values for BBO-8520, sotorasib and adagrasib in biochemical and cell-based assays

Distinct effector-binding preferences among RAS family GTPases challenge the longstanding view that canonical RAS proteins uniformly bind and activate RAF, PI3Kα, RalGDS, and other downstream effectors. Quantitative binding data, supported by structural insights into effector recognition, instead reveal a division of labor: the canonical RAS subfamily (KRAS, HRAS, NRAS) binds RAF kinases with high affinity, the RRAS subfamily (RRAS2 and MRAS) preferentially engages PI3Kα, and the RAP subfamily (RAP1A and RAP1B) shows the strongest binding to RalGDS. These intrinsic preferences, encoded in the switch regions and further shaped by isoform and effector expression, as well as subcellular localization, establish a hierarchy in which canonical RAS, RRAS2/MRAS, and RAP1A/B primarily activate RAF, PI3Kα, and RalGDS, respectively, in normal cells. Oncogenic mutations at codons G12, G13, or Q61 disrupt this hierarchy by driving sustained accumulation of GTP-bound canonical RAS, enabling engagement of lower-affinity effectors such as PI3Kα and RalGDS. In addition, certain mutations, including KRAS-G12D and -G12V, modestly enhance PI3Kα binding, representing a neomorphic expansion of effector engagement. Together, these effects bypass intrinsic effector selectivity, allowing canonical RAS to co-opt effectors normally associated with other RAS subfamilies and broaden downstream signaling. This framework explains how inherent effector preferences govern normal signaling and how oncogenic mutations override these constraints to expand effector engagement in RAS-driven cancers.

Disulfide tethering is a site-directed method of drug discovery used to identify hits for challenging targets. We applied tethering to target oncogenic KRAS, a small GTPase once considered undruggable due to its high nucleotide affinity and a perceived absence of binding sites. We prepared a library of 2160 disulfide-containing fragments. We screened over 1000 compounds against a panel of 83 engineered cysteine mutants of KRAS G12D in the active conformation and screened the full library for a subset of 30 mutants. For select mutants and hits, we performed 2-mercaptoethanol competition assays (βME-50) to prioritize ligands. Ligandability analysis comparing hit rates across mutant residues enabled the identification of druggable hot spots. Our studies confirmed known binding sites, including the Switch-II / α-helix 3 pocket. In addition, we identified previously undescribed cryptic pockets and validated select hits using computational chemistry and NMR spectroscopy. These pockets represent promising opportunities for future drug discovery campaigns.

Supplementary Figure S5 shows pAKT inhibition by BBO-11818 over a time course experiment in a KRASG12V cell line.

This file contains the supplementary materials and methods for the manuscript.

Supplementary Figure S3 shows the activity of BBO-8520, sotorasib, and adagrasib on Ba/F3 cells with KRAS G12C mutations with altered states of GTP hydrolysis

KRAS4a and KRAS4b are important regulators of signaling, and their interactions with the plasma membrane are dynamic and influenced by lipid composition. KRAS 4a and 4b have nearly identical globular domains but differ in their membrane-associated hyper variable region (HVR). The functional distinctions between these isoforms remain unclear, particularly with regards to their dependence on specific lipids and the membrane environment. Previous work showed that the membrane orientation of KRAS4b affects its ability to bind to RAF kinase RBDCRD and that the KRAS-RBDCRD complex adopts different poses on the membrane as well as influences the size and composition of the lipid environment. To model differences between KRAS 4a and 4b protein-lipid interactions, we extended the Multiscale Machine-Learned Modeling Infrastructure (MuMMI) to incorporate continuum simulations in the grand canonical ensemble, enabling sampling across macroscopic, coarse-grained, and all-atom resolutions. Using this framework, we systematically altered PIP2 concentrations, KRAS 4a versus 4b, and RAF RBDCRD complexation to assess impacts on membrane-protein interactions and dynamics. Our results reveal that reducing PIP2 shifts and broadens the membrane orientational preference of both KRAS 4b and 4a, with stronger effects on 4b HVR localization versus 4a. We demonstrate that with depletion of the strong negatively charged PIP2 lipid, the less charged phosphatidylserine replaces PIP2. Our findings highlight similarities and distinctions in the dynamics and lipid dependency of KRAS isoforms and suggest that ordering of the local lipid composition by HVRs is a shared property and key modulator of RAS-mediated signaling at the plasma membrane.

Supplementary Table S1 summarizes the crystallography data for BBO-8520 bound to GMPPNP- and GDP-bound KRAS G12C

Supplementary Figure S5 shows that BBO-8520 demonstrates in vivo pERK inhibition, KRAS G12C target engagement and is well tolerated

Supplementary Material and Methods

Supplementary Table S2 shows individual EC50 data for the inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in a panel of KRAS-mutant cell lines treated with BBO-11818.

RAF activation is essential for MAPK signaling and is mediated by RAS binding and the dephosphorylation of a conserved phosphoserine by the SHOC2–RAS–PP1C complex. MRAS forms a high-affinity SHOC2–MRAS–PP1C (SMP) complex, while canonical RAS isoforms (KRAS, HRAS, NRAS) form analogous but lower-affinity assemblies. Yet, cancers driven by oncogenic KRAS, HRAS, or NRAS remain strongly SHOC2-dependent, suggesting that these weaker complexes contribute to tumorigenesis. To elucidate how canonical RAS proteins form lower-affinity ternary complexes, the cryo-EM structure of the SHOC2–KRAS–PP1C (SKP) complex stabilized by Noonan syndrome mutations is described. The SKP architecture is similar to the SMP complex but forms fewer contacts and buries less surface area due to the absence of MRAS-specific structural features in KRAS that enhance complex stability. RAS inhibitors MRTX1133 and RMC-6236 alter Switch-I/II conformations, thereby blocking SKP assembly more effectively than they disrupt preformed complexes. These RAS inhibitors do not affect SMP formation because they do not bind MRAS. Since MRAS is upregulated in resistance to KRAS inhibition, we characterize a MRAS mutant capable of binding MRTX1133. This MRAS mutant can form an SMP complex, but MRTX1133 blocks its assembly, demonstrating the feasibility of dual SKP and SMP targeting. Overall, our findings define isoform-specific differences in SHOC2–RAS–PP1C complex formation and support a strategy to prevent both SKP and SMP assemblies to overcome resistance in RAS-driven cancers. RAS-driven cancers depend on SHOC2–PP1C. Here, the authors reveal that KRAS forms a low-affinity SHOC2–PP1C complex with fewer contacts than MRAS and show that dual inhibition of KRAS- and MRAS-dependent assemblies strengthens SHOC2 suppression and may overcome resistance.