The importance of the RAS-MAPK signalling pathway in cancer has led to the development of highly effective and specific inhibitors of RAS, BRAF and MEK that hold potential for the reduction of the severity and progression of the RASopathies (
Tidyman and Rauen, 2009). Some inhibitors have already been tested in preclinical mouse models: MEK inhibitors can effectively limit some of the features of activated MAPK signalling in an FGFR model of Apert syndrome, as well as in a RAF model of Noonan syndrome (
Chen et al., 2010;
Wu et al., 2011). In zebrafish, expression of RAS, BRAF and MEK Noonan and CFC syndrome mutations cause cell movement defects that can be prevented with the MEK inhibitors PD0325901 and/or the closely related CI-1040 (
Anastasaki et al., 2009;
Runtuwene et al., 2011). Altering the MAPK output can also restore impaired learning in fruit flies expressing SHP2 Noonan syndrome mutations (
Pagani et al., 2009). Thus, animal models of developmental disease in a wide range of species can respond to treatments designed to target altered signalling in human cancer.
Short treatments with MEK inhibitors at key developmental stages could thus prevent the serious consequences of CFC mutations in development. This strategy is possible in zebrafish because of the ex utero fertilization, the ability to clearly distinguish each developmental stage under the light microscope, and the rapid uptake of the compound from the fish water. This approach would be much more difficult to apply to in utero mammalian models, or even people. To address this, we tested continual MEK inhibitor treatment in the context of a zebrafish model of CFC syndrome. We identify three key findings relevant to MEK inhibitor treatments in animals. First, through systematic analysis of drug-development combinations, we identify that a 0.1–0.2 μM treatment dose of PD0325901 has little effect on normal development. These doses have only a partial effect on MEK activity as assessed by phospho-ERK1/2 activity and
dusp6-GFP expression. Second, continuous treatment with a 0.2 μM dose of MEK inhibitor is sufficient to prevent the effects of both kinase-active and kinase-impaired
BRAFCFC alleles. Thus, unlike cancer treatment strategies, which aim to fully inhibit MEK activity (e.g.
Solit et al., 2006;
Sharma and Settleman, 2007), MAPK signalling developmental disorders might benefit from only a partial inhibition of the pathway. This concept was also illustrated by the ability of upstream FGFR inhibitors to rescue downstream
BRAFCFC mutations in zebrafish, presumably because reducing endogenous FGF signalling helped reduce the total MAPK signalling output (
Anastasaki et al., 2009). Interestingly, in treatment conditions optimal for
BRAFCFC embryos, the embryos still showed some of the effects of increased MAPK signalling and slight developmental delay at 10 hpf, but once passed this stage developed normally. This might reflect the potential for the developing animal to tolerate some variations in signalling provided that it is below a critical threshold. Finally, we find that PD0325901 causes zebrafish embryonic heart defects. This effect appeared at all treatment doses, suggesting that either MEK activity is required to maintain heart integrity and/or that this defect reflects a toxic side effect. By contrast, adult zebrafish can tolerate 0.01–1.0 μM PD0325901 in fish water for at least 7 days (Jennifer Richardson, personal communication), suggesting that the effects might be specific to the embryonic zebrafish heart. Thus, in our model, treatment does not necessarily require a highly effective MEK inhibitor; however, the inhibitor needs to be highly specific in vivo to permit normal development. The importance of small-molecule specificity is underscored by the finding that the MEK inhibitor U0126 also targets copper metabolism pathways in vivo (
Ishizaki et al., 2010).
Our approach provides a starting point for the potential to use MEK inhibitors in the treatment of CFC syndrome. Other inhibitors of the RAS-MAPK signalling pathway could also be valuable (
Wilkie, 2007;
Tidyman and Rauen, 2009). For example, new BRAF inhibitors have been highly effective in
BRAF mutant melanoma treatment (
Yang et al., 2010;
Chapman et al., 2011), but side effects include the development of squamous-cell carcinomas in tissues that lack the somatic
BRAF mutation; it is unknown how BRAF inhibitors might work in the context of germline
BRAF mutations. A recent
BRAFCFC mouse model might assist in addressing this question (
Urosevic et al., 2011). The clinical features of CFC syndrome continue to progress after birth, and MEK inhibitors might be useful in managing and reducing the severity of clinical features during childhood. Importantly, in the preclinical mouse model of Noonan syndrome, postnatal administration of PD0325901 reduced lethality and the severity of the Noonan pathology (
Chen et al., 2010;
Wu et al., 2011). Although toxicity will always be a concern, we are encouraged that very low partial MEK inhibition treatments are effective in our zebrafish CFC syndrome model. We suggest that animal disease models such as this provide an important opportunity to test the action of available drugs in disease contexts that would otherwise remain unexplored in the drug development industry.