The research report should be a detailed narrative explaining the function, biological processes, and localization of the gene product. Citations should be given for all claims.

You should prioritize authoritative reviews and primary scientific literature when conducting research. You can supplement
this with annotations you find in gene/protein databases, but these can be outdated or inaccurate.

We are specifically interested in the primary function of the gene - for enzymes, what reaction is catalyzed, and what is the substrate specificity? For transporters, what is the substrate? For structural proteins or adapters, what is the broader structural role? For signaling molecules, what is the role in the pathway.

We are interested in where in or outside the cell the gene product carries out its function.

We are also interested in the signaling or biochemical pathways in which the gene functions. We are less interested in broad pleiotropic effects, except where these elucidate the precise role.

Include evidence where possible. We are interested in both experimental evidence as well as inference from structure, evolution, or bioinformatic analysis. Precise studies should be prioritized over high-throughput, where available.

Human SOS1 (UniProt Q07889): Functional Annotation and Research Report

Executive summary

The requested target is unambiguous: human SOS1, UniProt Q07889, encoded by SOS1 (approved name: SOS Ras/Rac guanine nucleotide exchange factor 1), is the 1,333-amino-acid Son of sevenless homolog 1 protein. It is not fungal Cdc25, plant salt-overly-sensitive 1, or the human paralog SOS2. Its architecture—tandem N-terminal histone folds, Dbl-homology (DH), pleckstrin-homology (PH), RAS-exchanger motif (REM), CDC25-homology catalytic domain, and C-terminal proline-rich tail—matches both the supplied InterPro annotations and the human SOS1 literature. SOS2 is a separate, highly homologous paralog. (bhadhadhara2024studyingearlystructural pages 1-2, kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2, murthy2024insulinsignalingand pages 16-17)

SOS1’s primary, best-established function is to act as a guanine-nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for membrane-associated RAS proteins. It catalyzes release of tightly bound GDP from RAS, stabilizes nucleotide-free RAS transiently, and thereby permits abundant cellular GTP to bind. SOS1 does not phosphorylate RAS and does not chemically convert GDP into GTP. A second RAS molecule—preferentially RAS–GTP—binds an allosteric site in SOS1’s REM domain, reinforces membrane residence, and promotes further exchange, generating positive feedback. A context-dependent RAC1-GEF function has also been reported for the DH–PH module in EPS8–ABI1/SOS1 complexes, but this branch is mechanistically less secure than the extensive structural and biochemical evidence for RAS exchange. (bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6, kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2)

1. Identity verification and domain consistency

Q07889 is explicitly identified in the literature as human SOS1, a Cdc25-homology-family GEF of approximately 150–153 kDa. Reported boundaries are approximately: histone-fold region 1–198, DH 200–390, PH 444–548, REM 567–741, CDC25 780–1019, and proline-rich tail 1020–1333. Minor differences among databases reflect boundary-calling methods rather than target ambiguity. The supplied DBL/DH, PH, and histone-fold InterPro assignments therefore align with experimentally studied SOS1; REM and CDC25 are additional essential RAS-GEF modules. (bhadhadhara2024studyingearlystructural pages 1-2, kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2, liao2018allosterickras4bcan pages 1-2)

The gene symbol is not ambiguous in this accession-and-organism context. Nevertheless, “SOS” is sometimes used generically for SOS1/SOS2, and “Son of Sevenless” homologs or Cdc25-family GEFs occur in other organisms. Such studies should not be treated as direct evidence about Q07889 unless human SOS1 is explicitly tested. The present report excludes the retrieved Candida albicans CaCdc25 work from target-specific conclusions.

The following table separates catalytic activity from regulatory, localization, and downstream functions.

Table: Domain-by-domain functional annotation of human SOS1 (Q07889), separating direct RAS/RAC nucleotide-exchange functions from localization, regulation, and downstream pathway effects. Approximate boundaries are included only where consistently supported.

2. Primary biochemical function and catalytic mechanism

2.1 Reaction

The operational reaction is:

RAS–GDP + GTP ⇌ RAS–GTP + GDP, catalyzed through a transient nucleotide-free RAS·SOS1 complex.

The CDC25-domain helical hairpin inserts between RAS Switch I and Switch II, opens the nucleotide-binding site, disrupts interactions that retain GDP/Mg²⁺, and stabilizes nucleotide-free RAS. Once RAS dissociates or nucleotide enters, intracellular GTP abundance biases reloading toward RAS–GTP. GEF catalysis is reversible in principle; SOS1 accelerates nucleotide exchange rather than supplying energy or determining the incoming nucleotide chemically. (bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6)

2.2 Substrate specificity

The strongest evidence supports direct action on classical RAS-family substrates, particularly KRAS in current biochemical and drug-discovery studies. The available evidence does not justify a universal quantitative preference ranking among HRAS, NRAS, and KRAS because apparent activity depends on membrane composition, RAS density, construct boundaries, and allosteric-site occupancy. Oncogenic RAS can still allosterically stimulate SOS1 and promote activation of wild-type RAS molecules, an important mechanism of pathway amplification. (kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2, bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4)

The DH–PH region has been assigned RAC1-GEF activity in an EPS8–ABI1/E3B1–SOS1 complex. Adaptor choice appears to partition function: GRB2-associated SOS1 favors receptor-to-RAS signaling, whereas ABI1/EPS8 complexes localize SOS1 to membrane ruffles and actin-remodeling sites. However, authoritative reviews note that direct RAC catalysis in vivo is less comprehensively established than CDC25-mediated RAS exchange and may include important scaffolding contributions. It should therefore be annotated as a supported but context-dependent secondary function, not as equivalent in certainty to RAS-GEF activity. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8, baltanas2021sos2comesto pages 7-8, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6)

3. Regulation and cellular localization

3.1 Cytosolic inactive pool and receptor-driven recruitment

In unstimulated cells, SOS1 is largely cytosolic and conformationally restrained. Following receptor tyrosine-kinase activation, GRB2’s SH2 domain recognizes receptor-associated phosphotyrosine sites while its SH3 domains bind PXXP motifs in the SOS1 C-terminal tail. This raises SOS1’s effective concentration at the cytoplasmic face of the plasma membrane, where prenylated RAS resides. SOS1 is therefore a soluble peripheral signaling protein rather than an integral membrane protein. (由樹2016asosin pages 6-13, pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8)

GRB2 is not the entire localization mechanism. The PH and histone-fold regions interact with acidic lipids, including phosphatidic acid and phosphoinositides, while both catalytic- and allosteric-site RAS contacts reinforce membrane binding. Single-molecule/reconstituted-membrane experiments indicate that these individually moderate interactions can retain SOS at the membrane for minutes. Receptor internalization and endocytosis then contribute to removal and signal termination. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16, pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8)

3.2 Autoinhibition

The N-terminal histone/DH/PH module constrains the catalytic core. The DH domain sterically restricts access of RAS to the REM allosteric site, while the histone folds interact with the DH–PH/REM linker and stabilize the closed state. SOS1 constructs retaining these modules are less active than the isolated REM–CDC25 catalytic core. Lipid and protein interactions at the membrane shift this conformational ensemble toward productive states rather than acting as a simple binary switch. (由樹2016asosin pages 6-13, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9)

3.3 RAS–GTP allosteric feedback

A second RAS molecule binds the REM allosteric site. RAS–GTP binds more productively than RAS–GDP, favors opening of the catalytic helical hairpin, and enhances SOS1 recruitment/retention near membrane RAS. This creates positive feedback: initial RAS–GTP promotes SOS1 activity, which produces additional RAS–GTP. Membrane-vesicle assays found approximately 500-fold greater exchange activity than solution measurements, and one allosterically activated, membrane-bound SOS molecule can processively activate hundreds of RAS molecules; some reconstituted systems report thousands before SOS removal. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9)

These findings refine the simplistic claim that allosteric RAS merely increases a fixed catalytic rate. Single-molecule results indicate that RAS–GTP can instead alter membrane recruitment and the occupancy or duration of highly active SOS states. Thus, the exact measured effect depends on whether an experiment averages over recruitment, conformational-state occupancy, or turnover by already membrane-bound molecules. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16)

3.4 Negative feedback

ERK- and RSK-dependent phosphorylation of the C-terminal tail reduces productive GRB2/SOS1 recruitment and creates 14-3-3 docking sites, opposing the positive-feedback loop. Reported sites include ERK-responsive Ser1132/1167/1178/1193 and RSK-responsive Ser1134/1161, although individual-site importance varies by model. Endocytosis provides another termination mechanism. Combined positive and delayed negative feedback can generate thresholded, pulsatile, or oscillatory RAS–ERK responses rather than a simple sustained ON state. (由樹2016asosin pages 6-13, kolch2023dynamicregulationof pages 6-7)

4. Pathway position and biological processes

The precise receptor-proximal pathway is:

activated RTK/adaptor complex → GRB2 recruitment of SOS1 → RAS GDP release/GTP loading → RAS–GTP effectors.

The principal downstream branch is RAF–MEK–ERK, which controls context-dependent proliferation, differentiation, survival, and transcription. RAS–GTP can also engage PI3K–AKT and other effectors, but these are downstream consequences of RAS activation—not reactions catalyzed by SOS1—and contributions from SOS2 or other GEFs vary by cell type. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 23-33, baltanas2021sos2comesto pages 7-8)

In the proposed RAC branch, SOS1 assembles with EPS8 and ABI1/E3B1 at actin-rich membrane ruffles. RAC1–GTP then controls lamellipodia, actin polymerization, migration, and associated JNK signaling. These cellular phenotypes are downstream of nucleotide exchange and should not be described as intrinsic catalytic activities of SOS1. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8, pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 23-33)

Subcellularly, SOS1’s best-supported site of productive RAS exchange is the inner plasma-membrane surface. RAS signaling can also occur on Golgi and endomembrane compartments, but the retrieved evidence does not establish a single constitutive SOS1 organelle residence; localization is stimulus-, adaptor-, lipid-, and trafficking-dependent. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16, kolch2023dynamicregulationof pages 6-7)

5. Human disease relevance

5.1 Noonan syndrome and RASopathies

Heterozygous germline gain-of-function SOS1 variants cause a recognized form of Noonan syndrome, generally by weakening autoinhibition or increasing membrane/catalytic competence and thereby elevating RAS–MAPK signaling. Open Targets maps human SOS1 (ENSG00000115904) strongly to Noonan syndrome, with an association score of approximately 0.87 in the retrieved record. A 2023 cardiovascular review estimated that SOS1 is the second most frequently altered Noonan-syndrome gene, accounting for 16.4% of patients in the cited dataset; this percentage is cohort- and ascertainment-dependent rather than a universal prevalence. RASopathies collectively affect roughly 1 in 1,000–2,500 children. (OpenTargets Search: Noonan syndrome,hereditary gingival fibromatosis,cancer-SOS1)

This genetic evidence is especially informative mechanistically because pathogenic variants often cluster in regulatory regions and demonstrate that physiological restraint of SOS1—not merely its catalytic core—is essential during development. Noonan syndrome is therefore best understood as dysregulated pathway gain, not SOS1 deficiency.

5.2 Hereditary gingival fibromatosis

A distinct SOS1-associated phenotype, hereditary gingival fibromatosis type 1, has historically been linked to truncating variants that alter the C-terminal region. This association is biologically plausible because the tail controls adaptor binding, phosphorylation, and trafficking. However, the retrieved recent evidence was substantially thinner than for Noonan syndrome, and SOS1 variants do not explain all hereditary gingival-fibromatosis families. Accordingly, it should be treated as an established but rare, allelic disease association rather than a general explanation for gingival fibromatosis.

5.3 Cancer

Somatic SOS1 activating mutations are uncommon relative to mutations in KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, or upstream receptors. A 2024 expert review estimated activating SOS1 alterations in approximately 1% of lung adenocarcinomas and uterine carcinomas and characterized them as rare, potentially weak oncogenic drivers. The therapeutic importance of SOS1 is broader than mutation frequency, however, because many RAS-driven tumors remain dependent on nucleotide exchange, wild-type RAS activation, or feedback reactivation after pathway inhibition. (bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4)

A November 2024 study identified SOS1 P481delinsLFFL in the BH1406 NSCLC cell line after a limited clinical sequencing panel had missed a driver. Cells were sensitive to BAY-293, MRTX0902, and BI-3406; sensitivity to BI-3406 was greater in 3D than 2D culture, and SOS1 inhibitors blocked the elevated ERK1/2 program observed in 3D. These findings support expanded sequencing and functional drug screening for rare drivers, but they derive from one cell-line model and do not establish patient benefit. [Hamilton et al., published 28 November 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-570] (hamilton2024characterizationofthe pages 1-2)

6. Recent developments, 2023–2024

6.1 Mechanistic research

A 2023 synthesis emphasized that RAS is a dynamic information-processing system: SOS1 positive feedback, ERK/RSK negative feedback, membrane nanoclusters, and compartmentalization jointly determine signaling amplitude and duration. This current view replaces the older model of SOS1 as a passive, single-step GDP/GTP switch. [Kolch et al., January 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220234] (kolch2023dynamicregulationof pages 6-7)

A January 2024 structural-simulation study analyzed early SOS1-mediated KRAS rearrangements, reinforcing the division between the REM allosteric site and CDC25 catalytic site and the importance of interdomain conformational communication. As a computational study, it is hypothesis-generating and complements—but does not supersede—crystallography, mutagenesis, and membrane reconstitution. [Bhadhadhara et al., January 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115] (bhadhadhara2024studyingearlystructural pages 1-2)

6.2 Small-molecule discovery

Most SOS1 inhibitors occupy a pocket adjacent to the SOS1–KRAS interface and prevent productive nucleotide exchange. Because SOS1 maintains or restores the GDP-bound RAS pool, combinations with GDP-state KRAS inhibitors or MEK inhibitors are mechanistically attractive. Expert reviews nevertheless stress pathway redundancy, SOS2 compensation, mutant-specific exchange dependence, and normal-tissue RAS signaling as potential limitations. Most GEF-directed agents remain preclinical. [Bannoura et al., June 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242] (bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4)

A 2024 machine-learning screen searched more than 1.4 million compounds, identified nine new inhibitory scaffolds, and reported a best hit with greater than 50% inhibition in a KRAS-G12C/SOS1 interaction assay and an IC50 near 20 μg/mL. This demonstrates discovery utility but remains far less potent than a clinical-quality lead and provides no evidence of human efficacy. [Duo et al., March 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4MD00063C] (duo2024discoveryofnovel pages 1-2)

A separate 2024 medicinal-chemistry program nominated HH0043, which produced 76% tumor-growth inhibition in an NCI-H358 KRAS-G12C xenograft versus 49% for BI-3406 at the same dose. These are mouse-model data, not a clinical comparison. [Li et al., June 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c00156]

SOS1-targeted degraders/PROTACs and dual SOS1/EGFR inhibitors were also reported in 2024, illustrating expansion beyond reversible interface blockers. Their translational advantages remain unproven, particularly regarding selectivity over SOS2, tissue exposure, and tolerability.

7. Clinical translation and real-world status

There is no approved SOS1-directed therapy in the evidence reviewed. Clinical work remains early-phase, and registry status must not be confused with demonstrated efficacy.

• NCT04111458: Phase I BI-1701963 monotherapy or BI-1701963 plus trametinib in advanced KRAS-mutant solid tumors; the retrieved registry listed 71 participants and active, not recruiting. The trial is designed around safety, dose, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary activity; registry objectives are not proof of benefit. (NCT04111458 chunk 2, bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4)
• NCT05578092: Phase I MRTX0902 alone or with adagrasib; 64 participants, terminated because “business objectives have changed.” No efficacy result should be inferred from that administrative reason. (NCT05578092 chunk 1)
• NCT04835714: Phase I BI-1701963 alone or with BI-3011441; 8 participants, terminated by sponsor decision. (NCT04835714 chunk 1)
• NCT04975256/KRYSTAL-14: Phase I adagrasib plus BI-1701963; 7 participants, terminated, primarily after a change in development strategy. The registry provides no response-rate evidence in the retrieved record. (NCT04975256 chunk 1)
• NCT04627142: BI-1701963 plus irinotecan in advanced KRAS-mutant bowel cancer; the retrieved search record listed Phase I, 15 participants, and terminated status.

These small enrollments and multiple strategic terminations show that compelling pathway biology has not yet translated into validated clinical efficacy. The most plausible applications remain combination treatment of exchange-dependent KRAS tumors, suppression of adaptive wild-type RAS reactivation, and biomarker-selected treatment of rare activating SOS1-mutant cancers.

8. Expert assessment and annotation confidence

High-confidence annotation: SOS1 is a regulated, membrane-proximal RAS GEF. Its CDC25 domain catalyzes GDP release; REM binds allosteric RAS; N-terminal domains enforce autoinhibition and participate in lipid recognition; the proline-rich tail controls adaptor recruitment and feedback. Productive function occurs mainly at the cytoplasmic membrane surface after receptor stimulation. This conclusion is supported by structures, mutagenesis, biochemical reconstitution, single-molecule measurements, disease genetics, and pharmacologic perturbation. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9, bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6)

Moderate-confidence secondary annotation: SOS1 can participate in RAC1 activation through its DH–PH module in EPS8–ABI1 complexes, especially at membrane ruffles. The direct catalytic contribution in intact cells is more context-dependent and less thoroughly resolved than RAS exchange. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8, kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2)

Important limitations: pathway outputs such as proliferation, ERK phosphorylation, AKT signaling, migration, and tumor growth are not unique molecular functions of SOS1. They depend on receptor context, RAS genotype, SOS2 and other GEFs, feedback, membrane organization, and cell state. Likewise, strong preclinical inhibitor activity and sound combination rationale do not yet constitute clinical validation.

Conclusion

Human SOS1/Q07889 is best functionally annotated as a multidomain, allosterically regulated RAS guanine-nucleotide exchange factor that operates predominantly on the inner plasma membrane downstream of activated receptors. Its core biochemical role is nucleotide release from RAS; membrane recruitment, lipid contacts, relief of autoinhibition, and RAS–GTP allosteric feedback determine when and where that reaction occurs. This positions SOS1 as a central amplifier and dynamic controller of RAS–RAF–MEK–ERK signaling and, in selected complexes, RAC-dependent cytoskeletal remodeling. Germline gain-of-function variants establish its developmental importance in Noonan syndrome, while current oncology applications focus on inhibiting SOS1 to suppress RAS activation and adaptive feedback. As of the reviewed 2024 evidence, this therapeutic strategy remains investigational rather than clinically established.

References

1. (bhadhadhara2024studyingearlystructural pages 1-2): Kirti Bhadhadhara, Vinod Jani, Shruti Koulgi, Uddhavesh Sonavane, and Rajendra Joshi. Studying early structural changes in sos1 mediated kras activation mechanism. Jan 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115, doi:10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115. This article has 10 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

2. (kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2): Dirk Kessler, Daniel Gerlach, Norbert Kraut, and Darryl B. McConnell. Targeting son of sevenless 1: the pacemaker of kras. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 62:109-118, Jun 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.02.014, doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.02.014. This article has 103 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

3. (murthy2024insulinsignalingand pages 16-17): Meghana Hosahalli Shivananda Murthy, Paniz Jasbi, Whitney Lowe, Lokender Kumar, Monsurat Olaosebikan, Liza Roger, Jinkyu Yang, Nastassja Lewinski, Noah Daniels, Lenore Cowen, and Judith Klein-Seetharaman. Insulin signaling and pharmacology in humans and in corals. PeerJ, 12:e16804, Jan 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16804, doi:10.7717/peerj.16804. This article has 5 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

4. (bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9): Pradeep Bandaru, Yasushi Kondo, and John Kuriyan. The interdependent activation of son-of-sevenless and ras. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 9 2:a031534, Feb 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a031534, doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a031534. This article has 95 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

5. (bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6): Pradeep Bandaru, Yasushi Kondo, and John Kuriyan. The interdependent activation of son-of-sevenless and ras. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 9 2:a031534, Feb 2019. URL: https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a031534, doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a031534. This article has 95 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

6. (liao2018allosterickras4bcan pages 1-2): Tsung-Jen Liao, Hyunbum Jang, David Fushman, and Ruth Nussinov. Allosteric kras4b can modulate sos1 fast and slow ras activation cycles. Biophysical journal, 115 4:629-641, Aug 2018. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.016, doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.016. This article has 41 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

7. (quilliam2007newinsightsinto pages 2-3): Lawrence A. Quilliam. New insights into the mechanisms of sos activation. Science's STKE, 2007:pe67-pe67, Nov 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/stke.4142007pe67, doi:10.1126/stke.4142007pe67. This article has 21 citations.

8. (由樹2016asosin pages 6-13): 中村， 由樹. A sos in regulation of the sos/ras positive. Unknown journal, 2016.

9. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 5-8): Stéphane Pierre, Anne-Sophie bats, and Xavier Coumoul. Understanding sos (son of sevenless). Biochemical pharmacology, 82 9:1049-56, Nov 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072, doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072. This article has 107 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

10. (christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16): Sune M Christensen, Hsiung-Lin Tu, Jesse E Jun, Steven Alvarez, Meredith G Triplet, Jeffrey S Iwig, Kamlesh K Yadav, Dafna Bar-Sagi, Jeroen P Roose, and Jay T Groves. One-way membrane trafficking of sos in receptor-triggered ras activation. Aug 2016. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3275, doi:10.1038/nsmb.3275. This article has 76 citations and is from a highest quality peer-reviewed journal.

11. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 1-5): Stéphane Pierre, Anne-Sophie bats, and Xavier Coumoul. Understanding sos (son of sevenless). Biochemical pharmacology, 82 9:1049-56, Nov 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072, doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072. This article has 107 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

12. (baltanas2021sos2comesto pages 7-8): Fernando C. Baltanás, Rósula García-Navas, and Eugenio Santos. Sos2 comes to the fore: differential functionalities in physiology and pathology. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22:6613, Jun 2021. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126613, doi:10.3390/ijms22126613. This article has 37 citations.

13. (kolch2023dynamicregulationof pages 6-7): Walter Kolch, Dénes Berta, and Edina Rosta. Dynamic regulation of ras and ras signaling. Biochemical Journal, 480:1-23, Jan 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1042/bcj20220234, doi:10.1042/bcj20220234. This article has 114 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

14. (pierre2011understandingsos(son pages 23-33): Stéphane Pierre, Anne-Sophie bats, and Xavier Coumoul. Understanding sos (son of sevenless). Biochemical pharmacology, 82 9:1049-56, Nov 2011. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072, doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072. This article has 107 citations and is from a domain leading peer-reviewed journal.

15. (bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4): Sahar F. Bannoura, Husain Yar Khan, Md. Hafiz Uddin, Ramzi M. Mohammad, Boris C. Pasche, and Asfar S. Azmi. Targeting guanine nucleotide exchange factors for novel cancer drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 19:949-959, Jun 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242, doi:10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242. This article has 11 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

16. (OpenTargets Search: Noonan syndrome,hereditary gingival fibromatosis,cancer-SOS1): Open Targets Query (Noonan syndrome,hereditary gingival fibromatosis,cancer-SOS1, 5 results). Buniello, A. et al. (2025). Open Targets Platform: facilitating therapeutic hypotheses building in drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Research.

17. (hamilton2024characterizationofthe pages 1-2): Gerhard Hamilton, Sandra Stickler, Mikhail Ermakov, Marie-Therese Eggerstorfer, Francesca Paola Nocera, Martin Hohenegger, Lukas Weigl, Maximilian Johannes Hochmair, and Karl Kashofer. Characterization of the bh1406 non-small cell lung cancer (nsclc) cell line carrying an activating sos1 mutation. Translational Lung Cancer Research, 13:2987-2997, Nov 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-570, doi:10.21037/tlcr-24-570. This article has 2 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

18. (duo2024discoveryofnovel pages 1-2): Lihui Duo, Yi Chen, Qiupei Liu, Zhangyi Ma, Amin Farjudian, Wan Yong Ho, Sze Shin Low, Jianfeng Ren, Jonathan D. Hirst, Hua Xie, and Bencan Tang. Discovery of novel sos1 inhibitors using machine learning. RSC Medicinal Chemistry, 15:1392-1403, Mar 2024. URL: https://doi.org/10.1039/d4md00063c, doi:10.1039/d4md00063c. This article has 12 citations and is from a peer-reviewed journal.

19. (NCT04111458 chunk 2): A Study to Test Different Doses of BI 1701963 Alone and Combined With Trametinib in Patients With Different Types of Advanced Cancer (Solid Tumours With KRAS Mutation). Boehringer Ingelheim. 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04111458

20. (NCT05578092 chunk 1): A Phase 1 Study of MRTX0902 in Solid Tumors With Mutations in the KRAS MAPK Pathway. Mirati Therapeutics Inc.. 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05578092

21. (NCT04835714 chunk 1): A Study to Find a Safe and Effective Dose of BI 1701963 Alone and in Combination With BI 3011441 in Patients With Advanced Cancer and a Certain Mutation (Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homologue [KRAS]). Boehringer Ingelheim. 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04835714

22. (NCT04975256 chunk 1): Adagrasib in Combination With BI 1701963 in Patients With Cancer (KRYSTAL 14). Mirati Therapeutics Inc.. 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04975256

Artifacts

• Edison artifact artifact-00

Citations

1. bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 4-6
2. christensen2016onewaymembranetrafficking pages 14-16
3. bannoura2024targetingguaninenucleotide pages 3-4
4. hamilton2024characterizationofthe pages 1-2
5. kolch2023dynamicregulationof pages 6-7
6. bhadhadhara2024studyingearlystructural pages 1-2
7. duo2024discoveryofnovel pages 1-2
8. kessler2021targetingsonof pages 1-2
9. murthy2024insulinsignalingand pages 16-17
10. bandaru2019theinterdependentactivation pages 8-9
11. quilliam2007newinsightsinto pages 2-3
12. Hamilton et al., published 28 November 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-570
13. Kolch et al., January 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220234
14. Bhadhadhara et al., January 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115
15. Bannoura et al., June 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242
16. Duo et al., March 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/D4MD00063C
17. Li et al., June 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c00156
18. KRAS
19. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-570]
20. https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220234]
21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115]
22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242]
23. https://doi.org/10.1039/D4MD00063C]
24. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c00156]
25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crstbi.2023.100115,
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.02.014,
27. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.16804,
28. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a031534,
29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.016,
30. https://doi.org/10.1126/stke.4142007pe67,
31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.07.072,
32. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.3275,
33. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22126613,
34. https://doi.org/10.1042/bcj20220234,
35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17460441.2024.2368242,
36. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-24-570,
37. https://doi.org/10.1039/d4md00063c,