Structure of the Regulator of G Protein Signaling 8 (RGS8)-Gαq Complex: MOLECULAR BASIS FOR Gα SELECTIVITY*

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins interact with activated Gα subunits via their RGS domains and accelerate the hydrolysis of GTP. Although the R4 subfamily of RGS proteins generally accepts both Gα_i/o and Gα_q/11 subunits as substrates, the R7 and R12 subfamilies select against Gα_q/11. In contrast, only one RGS protein, RGS2, is known to be selective for Gα_q/11. The molecular basis for this selectivity is not clear. Previously, the crystal structure of RGS2 in complex with Gα_q revealed a non-canonical interaction that could be due to interfacial differences imposed by RGS2, the Gα subunit, or both. To resolve this ambiguity, the 2.6 Å crystal structure of RGS8, an R4 subfamily member, was determined in complex with Gα_q. RGS8 adopts the same pose on Gα_q as it does when bound to Gα_i3, indicating that the non-canonical interaction of RGS2 with Gα_q is due to unique features of RGS2. Based on the RGS8-Gα_q structure, residues in RGS8 that contact a unique α-helical domain loop of Gα_q were converted to those typically found in R12 subfamily members, and the reverse substitutions were introduced into RGS10, an R12 subfamily member. Although these substitutions perturbed their ability to stimulate GTP hydrolysis, they did not reverse selectivity. Instead, selectivity for Gα_q seems more likely determined by whether strong contacts can be maintained between α6 of the RGS domain and Switch III of Gα_q, regions of high sequence and conformational diversity in both protein families.     

A Physiologically Required G Protein-coupled Receptor (GPCR)-Regulator of G Protein Signaling (RGS) Interaction That Compartmentalizes RGS Activity

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can interact with regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins. However, the effects of such interactions on signal transduction and their physiological relevance have been largely undetermined. Ligand-bound GPCRs initiate by promoting exchange of GDP for GTP on the Gα subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins. Signaling is terminated by hydrolysis of GTP to GDP through intrinsic GTPase activity of the Gα subunit, a reaction catalyzed by RGS proteins. Using yeast as a tool to study GPCR signaling in isolation, we define an interaction between the cognate GPCR (Mam2) and RGS (Rgs1), mapping the interaction domains. This reaction tethers Rgs1 at the plasma membrane and is essential for physiological signaling response. In vivo quantitative data inform the development of a kinetic model of the GTPase cycle, which extends previous attempts by including GPCR-RGS interactions. In vivo and in silico data confirm that GPCR-RGS interactions can impose an additional layer of regulation through mediating RGS subcellular localization to compartmentalize RGS activity within a cell, thus highlighting their importance as potential targets to modulate GPCR signaling pathways.     

Macromolecular Composition Dictates Receptor and G Protein Selectivity of Regulator of G Protein Signaling (RGS) 7 and 9-2 Protein Complexes in Living Cells

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins play essential roles in the regulation of signaling via G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). With hundreds of GPCRs and dozens of G proteins, it is important to understand how RGS regulates selective GPCR-G protein signaling. In neurons of the striatum, two RGS proteins, RGS7 and RGS9-2, regulate signaling by μ-opioid receptor (MOR) and dopamine D2 receptor (D2R) and are implicated in drug addiction, movement disorders, and nociception. Both proteins form trimeric complexes with the atypical G protein β subunit Gβ5 and a membrane anchor, R7BP. In this study, we examined GTPase-accelerating protein (GAP) activity as well as Gα and GPCR selectivity of RGS7 and RGS9-2 complexes in live cells using a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer-based assay that monitors dissociation of G protein subunits. We showed that RGS9-2/Gβ5 regulated both Gi and Go with a bias toward Go, but RGS7/Gβ5 could serve as a GAP only for Go. Interestingly, R7BP enhanced GAP activity of RGS7 and RGS9-2 toward Go and Gi and enabled RGS7 to regulate Gi signaling. Neither RGS7 nor RGS9-2 had any activity toward Gz, Gs, or Gq in the absence or presence of R7BP. We also observed no effect of GPCRs (MOR and D2R) on the G protein bias of R7 RGS proteins. However, the GAP activity of RGS9-2 showed a strong receptor preference for D2R over MOR. Finally, RGS7 displayed an four times greater GAP activity relative to RGS9-2. These findings illustrate the principles involved in establishing G protein and GPCR selectivity of striatal RGS proteins.     

Assembly and Function of the Regulator of G protein Signaling 14 (RGS14)·H-Ras Signaling Complex in Live Cells Are Regulated by Gαi1 and Gαi-linked G Protein-coupled Receptors

Regulator of G protein signaling 14 (RGS14) is a multifunctional scaffolding protein that integrates heterotrimeric G protein and H-Ras signaling pathways. RGS14 possesses an RGS domain that binds active Gα_i/o-GTP subunits to promote GTP hydrolysis and a G protein regulatory (GPR) motif that selectively binds inactive Gα_i1/3-GDP subunits to form a stable heterodimer at cellular membranes. RGS14 also contains two tandem Ras/Rap binding domains (RBDs) that bind H-Ras. Here we show that RGS14 preferentially binds activated H-Ras-GTP in live cells to enhance H-Ras cellular actions and that this interaction is regulated by inactive Gα_i1-GDP and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) in live cells, we show that RGS14-Luciferase and active H-Ras(G/V)-Venus exhibit a robust BRET signal at the plasma membrane that is markedly enhanced in the presence of inactive Gα_i1-GDP but not active Gα_i1-GTP. Active H-Ras(G/V) interacts with a native RGS14·Gα_i1 complex in brain lysates, and co-expression of RGS14 and Gα_i1 in PC12 cells greatly enhances H-Ras(G/V) stimulatory effects on neurite outgrowth. Stimulation of the Gα_i-linked α_2A-adrenergic receptor induces a conformational change in the Gα_i1·RGS14·H-Ras(G/V) complex that may allow subsequent regulation of the complex by other binding partners. Together, these findings indicate that inactive Gα_i1-GDP enhances the affinity of RGS14 for H-Ras-GTP in live cells, resulting in a ternary signaling complex that is further regulated by GPCRs.     

Regulation of Protease-activated Receptor 1 Signaling by the Adaptor Protein Complex 2 and R4 Subfamily of Regulator of G Protein Signaling Proteins

The G protein-coupled protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1) is irreversibly proteolytically activated by thrombin. Hence, the precise regulation of PAR1 signaling is important for proper cellular responses. In addition to desensitization, internalization and lysosomal sorting of activated PAR1 are critical for the termination of signaling. Unlike most G protein-coupled receptors, PAR1 internalization is mediated by the clathrin adaptor protein complex 2 (AP-2) and epsin-1, rather than β-arrestins. However, the function of AP-2 and epsin-1 in the regulation of PAR1 signaling is not known. Here, we report that AP-2, and not epsin-1, regulates activated PAR1-stimulated phosphoinositide hydrolysis via two different mechanisms that involve, in part, a subset of R4 subfamily of “regulator of G protein signaling” (RGS) proteins. A significantly greater increase in activated PAR1 signaling was observed in cells depleted of AP-2 using siRNA or in cells expressing a PAR1 ⁴²⁰AKKAA⁴²⁴ mutant with defective AP-2 binding. This effect was attributed to AP-2 modulation of PAR1 surface expression and efficiency of G protein coupling. We further found that ectopic expression of R4 subfamily members RGS2, RGS3, RGS4, and RGS5 reduced activated PAR1 wild-type signaling, whereas signaling by the PAR1 AKKAA mutant was minimally affected. Intriguingly, siRNA-mediated depletion analysis revealed a function for RGS5 in the regulation of signaling by the PAR1 wild type but not the AKKAA mutant. Moreover, activation of the PAR1 wild type, and not the AKKAA mutant, induced Gα_q association with RGS3 via an AP-2-dependent mechanism. Thus, AP-2 regulates activated PAR1 signaling by altering receptor surface expression and through recruitment of RGS proteins.     

Retinal Cone Photoreceptors Require Phosducin-Like Protein 1 for G Protein Complex Assembly and Signaling

G protein β subunits (Gβ) play essential roles in phototransduction as part of G protein βγ (Gβγ) and regulator of G protein signaling 9 (RGS9)-Gβ₅ heterodimers. Both are obligate dimers that rely on the cytosolic chaperone CCT and its co-chaperone PhLP1 to form complexes from their nascent polypeptides. The importance of PhLP1 in the assembly process was recently demonstrated in vivo in a retinal rod-specific deletion of the Phlp1 gene. To test whether this is a general mechanism that also applies to other cell types, we disrupted the Phlp1 gene specifically in mouse cones and measured the effects on G protein expression and cone visual signal transduction. In PhLP1-deficient cones, expression of cone transducin (G_t2) and RGS9-Gβ₅ subunits was dramatically reduced, resulting in a 27-fold decrease in sensitivity and a 38-fold delay in cone photoresponse recovery. These results demonstrate the essential role of PhLP1 in cone G protein complex formation. Our findings reveal a common mechanism of Gβγ and RGS9-Gβ₅ assembly in rods and cones, highlighting the importance of PhLP1 and CCT-mediated Gβ complex formation in G protein signaling.     

Gαo/i-stimulated proteosomal degradation of RGS20: A mechanism for temporal integration of Gs and Gi pathways

The G_s and G_i pathways interact to control the levels of intracellular cAMP. Although coincident signaling through G_s and G_i-coupled receptors can attenuate G_s-stimulated cAMP levels, it is not known if prior activation of the G_i pathway can affect signaling by G_s-coupled receptors. We have found that activated Gα_o/i interact with RGS20, a GTPase activating protein for members of the Gα_ο/i family. Interaction between Gα_o/i and RGS20 results in decreased cellular levels of RGS20. This decrease was induced by activated Gα_o and Gα_i2 but not by Gα_q, Gα_i1 or Gα_i3. The Gα_o/i-induced decrease in RGS20 can be blocked by proteasomal inhibitors lactacystin or MG132. Activated Gα_o stimulates the ubiquitination of RGS20. The serotonin-1A receptor that couples to G_o/i reduces the levels of RGS20 and this effect is blocked by lactacystin, suggesting that G_o/i promotes the degradation of RGS20. Expression of RGS20 attenuates the inhibition of β-adrenergic receptor-induced cAMP levels mediated by the serotonin-1A receptor. Prior activation of the serotonin-1A receptor results in loss of the RGS20-mediated attenuation, and the loss of attenuation is blocked when lactacystin is included during the prior treatment. These observations suggest that G_o/i-coupled receptors, by stimulating the degradation of RGS20, can regulate how subsequent activation of the G_s and G_i pathways controls cellular cAMP levels, thus allowing for signal integration.     

Effects of Regulator of G Protein Signaling 19 (RGS19) on Heart Development and Function

Wnt/Wg genes play a critical role in the development of various organisms. For example, the Wnt/β-catenin signal promotes heart formation and cardiomyocyte differentiation in mice. Previous studies have shown that RGS19 (regulator of G protein signaling 19), which has Gα subunits with GTPase activity, inhibits the Wnt/β-catenin signal through inactivation of Gα_o. In the present study, the effects of RGS19 on mouse cardiac development were observed. In P19 teratocarcinoma cells with RGS19 overexpression, RGS19 inhibited cardiomyocyte differentiation by blocking the Wnt signal. Additionally, several genes targeted by Wnt were down-regulated. For the in vivo study, we generated RGS19-overexpressing transgenic (RGS19 TG) mice. In these transgenic mice, septal defects and thin-walled ventricles were observed during the embryonic phase of development, and the expression of cardiogenesis-related genes, BMP4 and Mef2C, was reduced significantly. RGS19 TG mice showed increased expression levels of brain natriuretic peptide and β-MHC, which are markers of heart failure, increase of cell proliferation, and electrocardiogram analysis shows abnormal ventricle repolarization. These data provide in vitro and in vivo evidence that RGS19 influenced cardiac development and had negative effects on heart function.     

Integration of G Protein α (Gα) Signaling by the Regulator of G Protein Signaling 14 (RGS14)

RGS14 contains distinct binding sites for both active (GTP-bound) and inactive (GDP-bound) forms of Gα subunits. The N-terminal regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain binds active Gα_i/o-GTP, whereas the C-terminal G protein regulatory (GPR) motif binds inactive Gα_i1/3-GDP. The molecular basis for how RGS14 binds different activation states of Gα proteins to integrate G protein signaling is unknown. Here we explored the intramolecular communication between the GPR motif and the RGS domain upon G protein binding and examined whether RGS14 can functionally interact with two distinct forms of Gα subunits simultaneously. Using complementary cellular and biochemical approaches, we demonstrate that RGS14 forms a stable complex with inactive Gα_i1-GDP at the plasma membrane and that free cytosolic RGS14 is recruited to the plasma membrane by activated Gα_o-AlF₄⁻. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer studies showed that RGS14 adopts different conformations in live cells when bound to Gα in different activation states. Hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry revealed that RGS14 is a very dynamic protein that undergoes allosteric conformational changes when inactive Gα_i1-GDP binds the GPR motif. Pure RGS14 forms a ternary complex with Gα_o-AlF₄⁻ and an AlF₄⁻-insensitive mutant (G42R) of Gα_i1-GDP, as observed by size exclusion chromatography and differential hydrogen/deuterium exchange. Finally, a preformed RGS14·Gα_i1-GDP complex exhibits full capacity to stimulate the GTPase activity of Gα_o-GTP, demonstrating that RGS14 can functionally engage two distinct forms of Gα subunits simultaneously. Based on these findings, we propose a working model for how RGS14 integrates multiple G protein signals in host CA2 hippocampal neurons to modulate synaptic plasticity.     

Selective loss of fine tuning of Gq/11 signaling by RGS2 protein exacerbates cardiomyocyte hypertrophy

Alterations in cardiac G protein-mediated signaling, most prominently G(q/11) signaling, are centrally involved in hypertrophy and heart failure development. Several RGS proteins that can act as negative regulators of G protein signaling are expressed in the heart, but their functional roles are still poorly understood. RGS expression changes have been described in hypertrophic and failing hearts. In this study, we report a marked decrease in RGS2 (but not other major cardiac RGS proteins (RGS3-RGS5)) that occurs prior to hypertrophy development in different models with enhanced G(q/11) signaling (transgenic expression of activated Galpha(q)(*) and pressure overload due to aortic constriction). To assess functional consequences of selective down-regulation of endogenous RGS2, we identified targeting sequences for effective RGS2 RNA interference and used lipid-based transfection to achieve uptake of fluorescently labeled RGS2 small interfering RNA in >90% of neonatal and adult ventricular myocytes. Endogenous RGS2 expression was dose-dependently suppressed (up to 90%) with no major change in RGS3-RGS5. RGS2 knockdown increased phenylephrine- and endothelin-1-induced phospholipase Cbeta stimulation in both cell types and exacerbated the hypertrophic effect (increase in cell size and radiolabeled protein) in neonatal myocytes, with no major change in G(q/11)-mediated ERK1/2, p38, or JNK activation. Taken together, this study demonstrates that endogenous RGS2 exerts functionally important inhibitory restraint on G(q/11)-mediated phospholipase Cbeta activation and hypertrophy in ventricular myocytes. Our findings point toward a potential pathophysiological role of loss of fine tuning due to selective RGS2 down-regulation in G(q/11)-mediated remodeling. Furthermore, this study shows the feasibility of effective RNA interference in cardiomyocytes using lipid-based small interfering RNA transfection.     

RGS6, but Not RGS4, Is the Dominant Regulator of G Protein Signaling (RGS) Modulator of the Parasympathetic Regulation of Mouse Heart Rate

Parasympathetic activity decreases heart rate (HR) by inhibiting pacemaker cells in the sinoatrial node (SAN). Dysregulation of parasympathetic influence has been linked to sinus node dysfunction and arrhythmia. RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins are negative modulators of the parasympathetic regulation of HR and the prototypical M₂ muscarinic receptor (M₂R)-dependent signaling pathway in the SAN that involves the muscarinic-gated atrial K⁺ channel I_KACh. Both RGS4 and RGS6-Gβ5 have been implicated in these processes. Here, we used Rgs4^−/−, Rgs6^−/−, and Rgs4^−/−:Rgs6^−/− mice to compare the relative influence of RGS4 and RGS6 on parasympathetic regulation of HR and M₂R-I_KACh-dependent signaling in the SAN. In retrogradely perfused hearts, ablation of RGS6, but not RGS4, correlated with decreased resting HR, increased heart rate variability, and enhanced sensitivity to the negative chronotropic effects of the muscarinic agonist carbachol. Similarly, loss of RGS6, but not RGS4, correlated with enhanced sensitivity of the M₂R-I_KACh signaling pathway in SAN cells to carbachol and a significant slowing of M₂R-I_KACh deactivation rate. Surprisingly, concurrent genetic ablation of RGS4 partially rescued some deficits observed in Rgs6^−/− mice. These findings, together with those from an acute pharmacologic approach in SAN cells from Rgs6^−/− and Gβ5^−/− mice, suggest that the partial rescue of phenotypes in Rgs4^−/−:Rgs6^−/− mice is attributable to another R7 RGS protein whose influence on M₂R-I_KACh signaling is masked by RGS4. Thus, RGS6-Gβ5, but not RGS4, is the primary RGS modulator of parasympathetic HR regulation and SAN M₂R-I_KACh signaling in mice.     

Chemical genetics reveals an RGS/G-protein role in the action of a compound

We report here on a chemical genetic screen designed to address the mechanism of action of a small molecule. Small molecules that were active in models of urinary incontinence were tested on the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, and the resulting phenotypes were used as readouts in a genetic screen to identify possible molecular targets. The mutations giving resistance to compound were found to affect members of the RGS protein/G-protein complex. Studies in mammalian systems confirmed that the small molecules inhibit muscarinic G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling involving G-αq (G-protein alpha subunit). Our studies suggest that the small molecules act at the level of the RGS/G-αq signaling complex, and define new mutations in both RGS and G-αq, including a unique hypo-adapation allele of G-αq. These findings suggest that therapeutics targeted to downstream components of GPCR signaling may be effective for treatment of diseases involving inappropriate receptor activation.     

Signaling through G protein coupled receptors

Heterotrimeric G proteins (Gα, Gβ/Gγ subunits) constitute one of the most important components of cell signaling cascade. G Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) perceive many extracellular signals and transduce them to heterotrimeric G proteins, which further transduce these signals intracellular to appropriate downstream effectors and thereby play an important role in various signaling pathways. GPCRs exist as a superfamily of integral membrane protein receptors that contain seven transmembrane α-helical regions, which bind to a wide range of ligands. Upon activation by a ligand, the GPCR undergoes a conformational change and then activate the G proteins by promoting the exchange of GDP/GTP associated with the Gα subunit. This leads to the dissociation of Gβ/Gγ dimer from Gα. Both these moieties then become free to act upon their downstream effectors and thereby initiate unique intracellular signaling responses. After the signal propagation, the GTP of Gα-GTP is hydrolyzed to GDP and Gα becomes inactive (Gα-GDP), which leads to its re-association with the Gβ/Gγ dimer to form the inactive heterotrimeric complex. The GPCR can also transduce the signal through G protein independent pathway. GPCRs also regulate cell cycle progression. Till to date thousands of GPCRs are known from animal kingdom with little homology among them, but only single GPCR has been identified in plant system. The Arabidopsis GPCR was reported to be cell cycle regulated and also involved in ABA and in stress signaling. Here I have described a general mechanism of signal transduction through GPCR/G proteins, structure of GPCRs, family of GPCRs and plant GPCR and its role.Key words: heterotrimeric G proteins, GPCRs, seven-transmembrane receptors, signal transduction, stress signaling     

Gα13 Switch Region 2 Binds to the Talin Head Domain and Activates αIIbβ3 Integrin in Human Platelets

Even though GPCR signaling in human platelets is directly involved in hemostasis and thrombus formation, the sequence of events by which G protein activation leads to αIIbβ3 integrin activation (inside-out signaling) is not clearly defined. We previously demonstrated that a conformationally sensitive domain of one G protein, i.e. Gα₁₃ switch region 1 (Gα₁₃SR1), can directly participate in the platelet inside-out signaling process. Interestingly however, the dependence on Gα₁₃SR1 signaling was limited to PAR1 receptors, and did not involve signaling through other important platelet GPCRs. Based on the limited scope of this involvement, and the known importance of G₁₃ in hemostasis and thrombosis, the present study examined whether signaling through another switch region of G₁₃, i.e. Gα₁₃ switch region 2 (Gα₁₃SR2) may represent a more global mechanism of platelet activation. Using multiple experimental approaches, our results demonstrate that Gα₁₃SR2 forms a bi-molecular complex with the head domain of talin and thereby promotes β3 integrin activation. Moreover, additional studies provided evidence that Gα₁₃SR2 is not constitutively associated with talin in unactivated platelets, but becomes bound to talin in response to elevated intraplatelet calcium levels. Collectively, these findings provide evidence for a novel paradigm of inside-out signaling in platelets, whereby β3 integrin activation involves the direct binding of the talin head domain to the switch region 2 sequence of the Gα₁₃ subunit.     

Detection of G Protein-selective G Protein-coupled Receptor (GPCR) Conformations in Live Cells

Although several recent studies have reported that GPCRs adopt multiple conformations, it remains unclear how subtle conformational changes are translated into divergent downstream responses. In this study, we report on a novel class of FRET-based sensors that can detect the ligand/mutagenic stabilization of GPCR conformations that promote interactions with G proteins in live cells. These sensors rely on the well characterized interaction between a GPCR and the C terminus of a Gα subunit. We use these sensors to elucidate the influence of the highly conserved (E/D)RY motif on GPCR conformation. Specifically, Glu/Asp but not Arg mutants of the (E/D)RY motif are known to enhance basal GPCR signaling. Hence, it is unclear whether ionic interactions formed by the (E/D)RY motif (ionic lock) are necessary to stabilize basal GPCR states. We find that mutagenesis of the β2-AR (E/D)RY ionic lock enhances interaction with G_s. However, only Glu/Asp but not Arg mutants increase G protein activation. In contrast, mutagenesis of the opsin (E/D)RY ionic lock does not alter its interaction with transducin. Instead, opsin-specific ionic interactions centered on residue Lys-296 are both necessary and sufficient to promote interactions with transducin. Effective suppression of β2-AR basal activity by inverse agonist ICI 118,551 requires ionic interactions formed by the (E/D)RY motif. In contrast, the inverse agonist metoprolol suppresses interactions with G_s and promotes G_i binding, with concomitant pertussis toxin-sensitive inhibition of adenylyl cyclase activity. Taken together, these studies validate the use of the new FRET sensors while revealing distinct structural mechanisms for ligand-dependent GPCR function.     

Regulator of G-Protein Signaling – 5 (RGS5) Is a Novel Repressor of Hedgehog Signaling

Hedgehog (Hh) signaling plays fundamental roles in morphogenesis, tissue repair, and human disease. Initiation of Hh signaling is controlled by the interaction of two multipass membrane proteins, patched (Ptc) and smoothened (Smo). Recent studies identify Smo as a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR)-like protein that signals through large G-protein complexes which contain the Gα_i subunit. We hypothesize Regulator of G-Protein Signaling (RGS) proteins, and specifically RGS5, are endogenous repressors of Hh signaling via their ability to act as GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) for GTP-bound Gα_i, downstream of Smo. In support of this hypothesis, we demonstrate that RGS5 over-expression inhibits sonic hedgehog (Shh)-mediated signaling and osteogenesis in C3H10T1/2 cells. Conversely, signaling is potentiated by siRNA-mediated knock-down of RGS5 expression, but not RGS4 expression. Furthermore, using immuohistochemical analysis and co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP), we demonstrate that RGS5 is present with Smo in primary cilia. This organelle is required for canonical Hh signaling in mammalian cells, and RGS5 is found in a physical complex with Smo in these cells. We therefore conclude that RGS5 is an endogenous regulator of Hh-mediated signaling and that RGS proteins are potential targets for novel therapeutics in Hh-mediated diseases.     

GRK2 Targeted Knock-down Results in Spontaneous Hypertension,and Altered Vascular GPCR Signaling

Hypertension, elevated arterial pressure, occurs as the consequence of increased peripheral resistance. G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) contribute to the regulation of vasodilator and vasoconstrictor responses, and their activity is regulated by a family of GPCR kinases (GRKs). GRK2 expression is increased in hypertension and this facilitates the development of the hypertensive state by increasing the desensitization of GPCRs important for vasodilation. We demonstrate here, that genetic knockdown of GRK2 using a small hairpin (sh) RNA results in altered vascular reactivity and the development of hypertension between 8–12 weeks of age in shGRK2 mice due to enhanced Gα_q/11 signaling. Vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) cultured from shGRK2 knockdown mice show increases in GPCR-mediated Gα_s and Gα_q/11 signaling, as the consequence of reduced GRK2-mediated desensitization. In addition, agonists and biased agonists exhibited age-dependent alterations in ERK1/2 and Akt signaling, as well as cell proliferation and migration responses in shGRK2 knockdown VSMCs when cultured from mice that are either 3 months or 6 months of age. Changes in angiotensin II-stimulated ERK1/2 phosphorylation are observed in VSMCs derived from 6-week-old shGRK2 mice prior to the development of the hypertensive phenotype. Thus, our findings indicate that the balance between mechanisms regulating vascular tone are shifted to favor vasoconstriction in the absence of GRK2 expression and that this leads to the age-dependent development of hypertension, as a consequence of global alterations in GPCR signaling. Consequently, therapeutic strategies that target GRK2 activity, not expression, may be more effective for the treatment of hypertension.     

Constitutive Gαi Coupling Activity of Very Large G Protein-coupled Receptor 1 (VLGR1) and Its Regulation by PDZD7 Protein

The very large G protein-coupled receptor 1 (VLGR1) is a core component in inner ear hair cell development. Mutations in the vlgr1 gene cause Usher syndrome, the symptoms of which include congenital hearing loss and progressive retinitis pigmentosa. However, the mechanism of VLGR1-regulated intracellular signaling and its role in Usher syndrome remain elusive. Here, we show that VLGR1 is processed into two fragments after autocleavage at the G protein-coupled receptor proteolytic site. The cleaved VLGR1 β-subunit constitutively inhibited adenylate cyclase (AC) activity through Gα_i coupling. Co-expression of the Gα_iq chimera with the VLGR1 β-subunit changed its activity to the phospholipase C/nuclear factor of activated T cells signaling pathway, which demonstrates the Gα_i protein coupling specificity of this subunit. An R6002A mutation in intracellular loop 2 of VLGR1 abolished Gα_i coupling, but the pathogenic VLGR1 Y6236fsx1 mutant showed increased AC inhibition. Furthermore, overexpression of another Usher syndrome protein, PDZD7, decreased the AC inhibition of the VLGR1 β-subunit but showed no effect on the VLGR1 Y6236fsx1 mutant. Taken together, we identified an independent Gα_i signaling pathway of the VLGR1 β-subunit and its regulatory mechanisms that may have a role in the development of Usher syndrome.     

A Gs-RhoGEF interaction: An old G protein finds a new job

The heterotrimeric G proteins are known to have a variety of downstream effectors, but G_s was long thought to be specifically coupled to adenylyl cyclases. A new study indicates that activated G_s can also directly interact with a guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Rho family small GTPases, PDZ-RhoGEF. This novel interaction mediates activation of the small G protein Cdc42 by G_s-coupled GPCRs, inducing cytoskeletal rearrangements and formation of filopodia-like structures. Furthermore, overexpression of a minimal PDZ-RhoGEF fragment can down-regulate cAMP signaling, suggesting that this effector competes with canonical signaling. This first demonstration that the Gα_s subfamily regulates activity of Rho GTPases extends our understanding of Gα_s activity and establishes RhoGEF coupling as a universal Gα function.

The canonical G protein pathway consists of a cell surface receptor, a heterotrimeric G protein, and an effector protein that controls signaling within the cells. This fundamental paradigm, familiar to every biologist, is rooted in discoveries by the laboratories of Sutherland, Rodbell, and Gilman, which in the 1970s and 1980s dissected biochemical mechanisms of adenylyl cyclase activation by hormones. Their breakthrough came after experiments showing that the G protein G_s is essential to transfer agonist stimulation from the receptor to adenylyl cyclase (1). This G protein consists of the ∼42-kDa α subunit, which binds and hydrolyzes GTP, and the permanently associated dimer of 35-kDa β and ∼10-kDa γ subunits (Gβγ). Their findings helped establish a canonical model in which the agonist-bound receptor causes the G protein to release GDP, and the heterotrimer dissociates into Gα-GTP and free Gβγ; in this state, the G protein can activate its effector (i.e. Gα_s will activate adenylyl cyclase until GTP is hydrolyzed). Although the rod photoreceptor G protein, transducin, was discovered by that time (2), the ubiquitously expressed G_s can be considered the founding member of the G protein family.The subsequent cloning and identification of the other three families (G_i, G_q, and G₁₂) completed the rough map of G protein–mediated transduction. These initial studies suggested that the α subunits were responsible for activation of one type of effector (e.g. Gα_s for adenylyl cyclase and cAMP; Gα_q for phospholipase C, phosphoinositides, and Ca²⁺; and Gα_i for ion channels and inhibition of adenylyl cyclase), whereas the free Gβγ complexes interact with a remarkably large number of binding partners, including some effector enzymes and ion channels (3). Later, Gα₁₂ and Gα₁₃ were found to regulate a distinct type of effectors, the RhoGEFs (4, 5). These multidomain proteins contain pleckstrin homology (PH) domains, which facilitate their membrane localization, and Dbl homology (DH) domains, which catalyze GDP-for-GTP exchange (guanine nucleotide exchange factor; GEF) in the Rho family of small (∼20-kDa) G proteins. At the time, the G₁₂-RhoGEF pathway seemed odd as it contained two G proteins: the receptor-activated “large” G₁₂ class protein and the “small” Rho G protein, which is activated by RhoGEF. However, it was then discovered that Gα_q could activate a RhoGEF called Trio (6), and that Gβγ complexes activate other RhoGEFs, indicating that this pathway, if unusual, is at least popular. Gα_s, however, mostly appeared to be faithful to its originally determined role—to stimulate adenylyl cyclase(s)—possibly contributing to the enduring perception that regulation of a second messenger–generating enzyme is the “real” function of a heterotrimeric G protein.In the current issue of JBC, Castillo-Kauil et al. (7) force a reexamination of the existing canon, presenting data that show Gα_s can also interact with a specific RhoGEF, in this case PDZ-RhoGEF (PRG). The authors made this discovery as part of an examination of the regulation of cell shape by the Rho family. They began by expressing a series of short constructs of three RhoGEF proteins, p115RhoGEF, PRG, and LARG, all of which activated RhoA as expected, promoting cell contraction. However, they noticed that the DH/PH domain of PRG also activated Cdc42 and induced filopodia-like cell protrusions. To investigate which G protein is responsible for activation of this Cdc42-mediated pathway, they overexpressed constitutively active mutants of different Gα subunits. These mutants are stabilized in the active GTP-bound state due to substitution of the glutamine residue crucial for GTP hydrolysis. Surprisingly, the PRG-Cdc42 pathway was stimulated by Gα_sQ227L, the one Gα subtype not known for interaction with RhoGEFs. Furthermore, they showed that binding of PRG to Cdc42 was promoted only by G_s-coupled receptors, and not by G_q- or G_i-coupled GPCRs. The authors then investigated the PRG site responsible for the interaction with Gα_s, narrowing it down to the isolated PRG DH and PH domains and their linker region. A construct encompassing these domains was able to inhibit (i) GPCR-mediated activation of Cdc42, (ii) the Gα_sQ227L-promoted interaction of PRG with Cdc42, and (iii) some protein phosphorylation events downstream of the canonical cAMP pathway. Taken together, their work identifies PRG as a novel effector for G_s; the Gα_s-PRG interaction mediates activation of Rho family protein Cdc42, leading to cytoskeletal remodeling.The unexpected results of Castillo-Kauil et al. open up new opportunities to explore this mechanism at different levels of biology. The experiments described in the paper were performed in vitro using cultured cells, imaging, and pulldown of protein complexes containing the overexpressed Gα_s Q227L mutant. Considering the multitude of G_s-coupled receptors and RhoGEFs in the body (8, 9), it will be important to understand the physiological context where the new G_s-mediated pathway plays a significant role. This will require experimentation in vivo and possibly reevaluation of the phenotypes associated with known pathogenic mutations in Gα_s (GNAS) and other relevant genes. At the molecular level, it would be important to delineate the biochemical mechanisms of Gα_s interaction with PRG. For example, at what stage of the GTP/GDP cycle does Gα_s bind to PRG: in the GTP-bound state, which also activates adenylate cyclase, or in the transition state (i.e. just before the terminal phosphate of GTP is removed)? Indeed, there is precedent for proteins that bind preferentially with the transition state—specifically RGS proteins, which accelerate the GTPase reaction. Another possibility is that, by analogy with p115RhoGEF, which stimulates GTPase activity of Gα₁₂ and Gα₁₃, PRG (and other RhoGEFs with similar DH-PH sequences) can influence interaction of Gα_s with nucleotides, Gβγ, and other partners.Since defining the receptor, G protein, and effector as the three essential members of the G protein pathway, researchers have discovered many additional proteins that regulate the amplitude and duration of the stimulus and/or participate in cross-talk with other signaling circuits. These “new” proteins include arrestins, receptor kinases, nonreceptor exchange factors, GTPase-activating proteins, special chaperones, etc. Thus, in a way, discovering a novel binding partner for a signaling molecule is not as surprising as it would have been 20 years ago. However, the new partner identified by Castillo-Kauil et al. makes the result of extra significance; until now, we knew that three of four G protein subfamilies could regulate Rho GTPases by activating RhoGEFs: G₁₂ and G_q via their α subunits and G_i via the Gβγ subunits (10). The demonstration that the G_s subfamily is no exception shows that activation of RhoGEFs by heterotrimeric G proteins may be a truly universal mechanism (Fig. 1). The significance of this insight is that the multitude of biological processes regulated by Rho-GTPase networks can potentially respond to the entire repertoire of GPCR-mediated stimuli.Open in a separate windowFigure 1.Activation of the Rho family by heterotrimeric G proteins. The Rho family of small GTPases is activated by RhoGEF proteins, some of which can be stimulated by heterotrimeric G proteins. Of four families of heterotrimeric G proteins, three (G₁₂, G_q, and G_i, shown in shades of gray) were known to activate certain RhoGEFs. The new results (highlighted in orange) (7) show that G_s, the G protein known to stimulate production of cAMP, can also stimulate a particular RhoGEF; this suggests that the Rho GTPases can potentially be stimulated by the multitude of signals from the entire class of GPCRs, including those coupled to G_s. IP₃, inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate.

Funding and additional information—This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health Grant R56DK119262 (to V. Z. S.). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Conflict of interest—The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the contents of this article.

Abbreviations—The abbreviations used are:

PH

pleckstrin homology

DH

Dbl homology

GEF

guanine nucleotide exchange factor

PRG

PDZ-RhoGEF

GPCR

G protein–coupled receptor.