In general, melanoma can be considered as a UV‐driven disease with an aggressive metastatic course and high mutational load, with only few tumors (acral, mucosal, and uveal melanomas) not induced by sunlight and possessing a lower mutational load.,The most commonly activated pathway in melanoma is the mitogen‐activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway.,However, the prognostic significance of mutational stratification is unclear and needs further investigation.,Here, in silico we combined mutation data from 162 melanomas subjected to targeted deep sequencing with mutation data from three published studies.,Tumors from 870 patients were grouped according to BRAF,RAS,NF1 mutation or triple‐wild‐type status and correlated with tumor and patient characteristics.,We found that the NF1‐mutated subtype had a higher mutational burden and strongest UV mutation signature.,Searching for co‐occurring mutated genes revealed the RASopathy genes PTPN11 and RASA2, as well as another RAS domain‐containing gene RASSF2 enriched in the NF1 subtype after adjustment for mutational burden.,We found that a larger proportion of the NF1‐mutant tumors were from males and with older age at diagnosis.,Importantly, we found an increased risk of death from melanoma (disease‐specific survival, DSS; HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.21-3.10; P = 0.046) and poor overall survival (OS; HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.28-2.98; P = 0.01) in the NF1 subtype, which remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, and lesion type (DSS  P = 0.03, OS  P = 0.06, respectively).,Melanoma genomic subtypes display different biological and clinical characteristics.,The poor outcome observed in the NF1 subtype highlights the need for improved characterization of this group.
Cross-feedback activation of MAPK and AKT pathways is implicated as a resistance mechanism for cancer therapeutic agents targeting either RAF/MEK or PI3K/AKT/mTOR.,It is thus important to have a better understanding of the molecular resistance mechanisms to improve patient survival benefit from these agents.,Here we show that BRAFV600E is a negative regulator of the AKT pathway.,Expression of BRAFV600E in NIH3T3 cells significantly suppresses MEK inhibitor (RG7167) or mTORC1 inhibitor (rapamycin) induced AKT phosphorylation (pAKT) and downstream signal activation.,Treatment-induced pAKT elevation is found in BRAF wild type melanoma cells but not in a subset of melanoma cell lines harboring BRAFV600E.,Knock-down of BRAFV600E in these melanoma cells elevates basal pAKT and downstream signals, whereas knock-down of CRAF, MEK1/2 or ERK1/2 or treatment with a BRAF inhibitor have no impact on pAKT.,Mechanistically, we show that BRAFV600E interacts with rictor complex (mTORC2) and regulates pAKT through mTORC2.,BRAFV600E is identified in mTORC2 after immunoprecipitation of rictor.,Knock-down of rictor abrogates BRAFV600E depletion induced pAKT.,Knock-down of BRAFV600E enhances cellular enzyme activity of mTORC2.,Aberrant activation of AKT pathway by PTEN loss appears to override the negative impact of BRAFV600E on pAKT.,Taken together, our findings suggest that in a subset of BRAFV600E melanoma cells, BRAFV600E negatively regulates AKT pathway in a rictor-dependent, MEK/ERK and BRAF kinase-independent manner.,Our study reveals a novel molecular mechanism underlying the regulation of feedback loops between the MAPK and AKT pathways.