Modules in the photoreceptor RGS9-1.Gbeta 5L GTPase-accelerating protein complex control effector coupling, GTPase acceleration, protein folding, and stability

RGS (regulators of G protein signaling) proteins regulate G protein signaling by accelerating GTP hydrolysis, but little is known about regulation of GTPase-accelerating protein (GAP) activities or roles of domains and subunits outside the catalytic cores. RGS9-1 is the GAP required for rapid recovery of light responses in vertebrate photoreceptors and the only mammalian RGS protein with a defined physiological function. It belongs to an RGS subfamily whose members have multiple domains, including G(gamma)-like domains that bind G(beta)(5) proteins. Members of this subfamily play important roles in neuronal signaling. Within the GAP complex organized around the RGS domain of RGS9-1, we have identified a functional role for the G(gamma)-like-G(beta)(5L) complex in regulation of GAP activity by an effector subunit, cGMP phosphodiesterase gamma and in protein folding and stability of RGS9-1. The C-terminal domain of RGS9-1 also plays a major role in conferring effector stimulation. The sequence of the RGS domain determines whether the sign of the effector effect will be positive or negative. These roles were observed in vitro using full-length proteins or fragments for RGS9-1, RGS7, G(beta)(5S), and G(beta)(5L). The dependence of RGS9-1 on G(beta)(5) co-expression for folding, stability, and function has been confirmed in vivo using transgenic Xenopus laevis. These results reveal how multiple domains and regulatory polypeptides work together to fine tune G(talpha) inactivation.     

Regulation of G protein-mediated signal transduction by RGS proteins

RGS proteins form a new family of regulatory proteins of G protein signaling. They contain homologous core domains (RGS domains) of about 120 amino acids. RGS domains interact with activated Galpha subunits. Several RGS proteins have been shown biochemically to act as GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) for their interacting Galpha subunits. Other than RGS domains, RGS proteins differ significantly in size, amino acid sequences, and tissue distribution. In addition, many RGS proteins have other protein-protein interaction motifs involved in cell signaling. We have shown that p115RhoGEF, a newly identified GEF(guanine nucleotide exchange factor) for RhoGTPase, has a RGS domain at its N-terminal region and this domain acts as a specific GAP for Galpha12 and Galpha13. Furthermore, binding of activated Galpha13 to this RGS domain stimulated GEF activity of p115RhoGEF. Activated Galpha12 inhibited Galpha13-stimulated GEF activity. Thus p115RhoGEF is a direct link between heterotrimeric G protein and RhoGTPase and it functions as an effector for Galpha12 and Galpha13 in addition to acting as their GAP. We also found that RGS domain at N-terminal regions of G protein receptor kinase 2 (GRK2) specifically interacts with Galphaq/11 and inhibits Galphaq-mediated activation of PLC-beta, apparently through sequestration of activated Galphaq. However, unlike other RGS proteins, this RGS domain did not show significant GAP activity to Galphaq. These results indicate that RGS proteins have far more diverse functions than acting simply as GAPs and the characterization of function of each RGS protein is crucial to understand the G protein signaling network in cells.     

G蛋白信号调节因子的结构分类和功能

G蛋白信号调节因子是能够直接与激活的Gα亚基结合,显著刺激Gα亚基上的GTP酶活性,加速GTP水解,从而灭活或终止G蛋白信号的一组分子大小各异的多功能蛋白质家族。它们都共同拥有一个130个氨基酸的保守的RGS结构域,其功能是结合激活的Gα亚基,负调节G蛋白信号。许多RGS蛋白还拥有非RGS结构域,能够结合其它信号蛋白,从而整合和调节G蛋白信号之间以及G蛋白和其它信号系统之间的关系。     

Specificity of G protein-RGS protein recognition is regulated by affinity adapters

RGS proteins regulate the duration of cell signaling by modulating the lifetime of activated G proteins. The specificity of RGS-G protein mutual recognition is critical for meeting unique timing requirements of numerous G protein-mediated pathways. Our study of two splice isoforms of RGS9 expressed in different types of neurons revealed a novel mechanism whereby this specificity is determined by specialized protein domains or subunits acting as affinity adapters. The long RGS9 isoform contains a C-terminal domain that provides high-affinity interaction with its target G protein. The lack of this domain in the short RGS9 isoform is compensated by the action of a G protein effector subunit that is structurally similar to this C-terminal domain. This allows the short isoform to specifically target the complex between the G protein and its effector. Thus, the specific timing needs of different signaling pathways can be accommodated by affinity adapters positioned at various pathway components.     

Type 5 G protein beta subunit (Gbeta5) controls the interaction of regulator of G protein signaling 9 (RGS9) with membrane anchors

The R7 family of regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins, comprising RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, and RGS11, regulate neuronal G protein signaling pathways. All members of the R7 RGS form trimeric complexes with the atypical G protein β subunit, Gβ5, and membrane anchor R7BP or R9AP. Association with Gβ5 and membrane anchors has been shown to be critical for maintaining proteolytic stability of the R7 RGS proteins. However, despite its functional importance, the mechanism of how R7 RGS forms complexes with Gβ5 and membrane anchors remains poorly understood. Here, we used protein-protein interaction, co-localization, and protein stability assays to show that association of RGS9 with membrane anchors requires Gβ5. We further establish that the recruitment of R7BP to the complex requires an intact interface between the N-terminal lobe of RGS9 and protein interaction surface of Gβ5. Site-directed mutational analysis reveals that distinct molecular determinants in the interface between Gβ5 and N-terminal Dishevelled, EGL-10, Pleckstrin/DEP Helical Extension (DEP/DHEY) domains are differentially involved in R7BP binding and proteolytic stabilization. On the basis of these findings, we conclude that Gβ5 contributes to the formation of the binding site to the membrane anchors and thus is playing a central role in the assembly of the proteolytically stable trimeric complex and its correct localization in the cell.     

Binding of regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins to phospholipid bilayers. Contribution of location and/or orientation to Gtpase-activating protein activity

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins must bind membranes in an orientation that permits the protein-protein interactions necessary for regulatory activity. RGS4 binds to phospholipid surfaces in a slow, multistep process that leads to maximal GTPase-activating protein (GAP) activity. When RGS4 is added to phospholipid vesicles that contain m2 or m1 muscarinic receptor and G(i), G(z), or G(q), GAP activity increases approximately 3-fold over 4 h at 30 degrees C and more slowly at 20 degrees C. This increase in GAP activity is preceded by several other events that suggest that, after binding, optimal interaction with G protein and receptor requires reorientation of RGS4 on the membrane surface, a conformational change, or both. Binding of RGS4 is initially reversible but becomes irreversible within 5 min. Onset of irreversibility parallels initial quenching of tryptophan fluorescence (t(12) approximately 30 s). Further quenching occurs after binding has become irreversible (t(12) approximately 6 min) but is complete well before maximal GAP activity is attained. These processes all appear to be energetically driven by the amphipathic N-terminal domain of RGS4 and are accelerated by palmitoylation of cysteine residues in this region. The RGS4 N-terminal domain confers similar membrane binding behavior on the RGS domains of either RGS10 or RGSZ1.     

Regulators of G protein signaling exhibit distinct patterns of gene expression and target G protein specificity in human lymphocytes

The newly recognized regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) attenuate heterotrimeric G protein signaling pathways. We have cloned an IL-2-induced gene from human T cells, cytokine-responsive gene 1, which encodes a member of the RGS family, RGS16. The RGS16 protein binds Gialpha and Gqalpha proteins present in T cells, and inhibits Gi- and Gq-mediated signaling pathways. By comparison, the mitogen-induced RGS2 inhibits Gq but not Gi signaling. Moreover, the two RGS genes exhibit marked differences in expression patterns. The IL-2-induced expression of the RGS16 gene in T cells is suppressed by elevated cAMP, whereas the RGS2 gene shows a reciprocal pattern of regulation by these stimuli. Because the mitogen and cytokine receptors that trigger expression of RGS2 and RGS16 in T cells do not activate heterotrimeric G proteins, these RGS proteins and the G proteins that they regulate may play a heretofore unrecognized role in T cell functional responses to Ag and cytokine activation.     

A conserved protein interaction interface on the type 5 G protein beta subunit controls proteolytic stability and activity of R7 family regulator of G protein signaling proteins

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins of the R7 subfamily limit signaling by neurotransmitters in the brain and by light in the retina. They form obligate complexes with the Gβ5 protein that are subject to proteolysis to control their abundance and alter signaling. The mechanisms that regulate this proteolysis, however, remain unclear. We used genetic screens to find mutations in Gβ5 that selectively destabilize one of the R7 RGS proteins in Caenorhabditis elegans. These mutations cluster at the binding interface between Gβ5 and the N terminus of R7 RGS proteins. Equivalent mutations within mammalian Gβ5 allowed the interface to still bind the N-terminal DEP domain of R7 RGS proteins, and mutant Gβ5-R7 RGS complexes initially formed in cells but were then rapidly degraded by proteolysis. Molecular dynamics simulations suggest the mutations weaken the Gβ5-DEP interface, thus promoting dynamic opening of the complex to expose determinants of proteolysis known to exist on the DEP domain. We propose that conformational rearrangements at the Gβ5-DEP interface are key to controlling the stability of R7 RGS protein complexes.     

The Mutation in the N-Terminal Domain of RGS4 Disrupts PA-Conferred Inhibitory Effect on GAP Activity

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are GTPase-activating proteins (GAP) for G protein alpha-subunits and are thought to be responsible for rapid deactivation of G protein mediated signaling pathway. In this present study, we demonstrate that PA is the most efficient candidate to inhibit GAP activity of RGS4. The functional significance of N-terminus of RGS4 in respose to PA-granted inhibition on GAP activity has been studied with the site mutation in the N-terminus of RGS4. These site-directed mutations in the N-terminal domain do not severely disrupt its association with liposomes of PA. However, RGS4L23E diminishes the inhibition of GAP activity by PA compared with the wild type RGS4, whereas RGSR22E abrogates the inhibitory effect by PA on GAP activity. The correspondent conformational discrepancy in the RGS domain of these mutants in the presence of PA vesicles was detected from fluorescence experiments. It is suggested that the functional pertinence between the N-terminus and RGS domain may be important to modulate PA-conferred inhibitory effect on its GAP activity.     

The Ras‐binding domain region of RGS14 regulates its functional interactions with heterotrimeric G proteins

RGS14 is a 60 kDa protein that contains a regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain near its N‐terminus, a central region containing a pair of tandem Ras‐binding domains (RBD), and a GPSM (G protein signaling modulator) domain (a.k.a. Gi/o‐Loco binding [GoLoco] motif) near its C‐terminus. The RGS domain of RGS14 exhibits GTPase accelerating protein (GAP) activity toward Gαi/o proteins, while its GPSM domain acts as a guanine nucleotide dissociation inhibitor (GDI) on Gαi1 and Gαi3. In the current study, we investigate the contribution of different domains of RGS14 to its biochemical functions. Here we show that the full‐length protein has a greater GTPase activating activity but a weaker inhibition of nucleotide dissociation relative to its isolated RGS and GPSM regions, respectively. Our data suggest that these differences may be attributable to an inter‐domain interaction within RGS14 that promotes the activity of the RGS domain, but simultaneously inhibits the activity of the GPSM domain. The RBD region seems to play an essential role in this regulatory activity. Moreover, this region of RGS14 is also able to bind to members of the B/R4 subfamily of RGS proteins and enhance their effects on GPCR‐activated Gi/o proteins. Overall, our results suggest a mechanism wherein the RBD region associates with the RGS domain region, producing an intramolecular interaction within RGS14 that enhances the GTPase activating function of its RGS domain while disfavoring the negative effect of its GPSM domain on nucleotide dissociation. J. Cell. Biochem. 114: 1414–1423, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

G protein-dependent Ca2+ signaling complexes in polarized cells

Polarized cells signal in a polarized manner. This is exemplified in the patterns of [Ca2+]i waves and [Ca2+]i oscillations evoked by stimulation of G protein-coupled receptors in these cells. Organization of Ca(2+)-signaling complexes in cellular microdomains, with the aid of scaffolding proteins, is likely to have a major role in shaping G protein-coupled [Ca2+]i signal pathways. In epithelial cells, these domains coincide with sites of [Ca2+]i-wave initiation and local [Ca2+]i oscillations. Cellular microdomains enriched with Ca(2+)-signaling proteins have been found in several cell types. Microdomains organize communication between Ca(2+)-signaling proteins in the plasma membrane and internal Ca2+ stores in the endoplasmic reticulum through the interaction between the IP3 receptors in the endoplasmic reticulum and Ca(2+)-influx channels in the plasma membrane. Ca2+ signaling appears to be controlled within the receptor complex by the regulators of G protein-signaling (RGS) proteins. Three domains in RGS4 and related RGS proteins contribute important regulatory features. The RGS domain accelerates GTP hydrolysis on the G alpha subunit to uncouple receptor stimulation from IP3 production; the C-terminus may mediate interaction with accessory proteins in the complex; and the N-terminus acts in a receptor-selective manner to confer regulatory specificity. Hence, RGS proteins have both catalytic and scaffolding function in Ca2+ signaling. Organization of Ca(2+)-signaling proteins into complexes within microdomains is likely to play a prominent role in the localized control of [Ca2+]i and in [Ca2+]i oscillations.     

The membrane association domain of RGS16 contains unique amphipathic features that are conserved in RGS4 and RGS5.

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS proteins) modulate G protein-mediated signaling pathways by acting as GTPase-activating proteins for Gi, Gq, and G12 alpha-subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins. Although it is known that membrane association is critical for the biological activities of many RGS proteins, the mechanism underlying this requirement remains unclear. We reported recently that the NH2 terminus of RGS16 is required for its function in vivo. In this study, we show that RGS16 lacking the NH2 terminus is no longer localized to the plasma membrane as is the wild type protein, suggesting that membrane association is important for biological function. The region of amino acids 7-32 is sufficient to confer the membrane-targeting activity, of which amino acids 12-30 are predicted to adopt an amphipathic alpha-helix. Site-directed mutagenesis experiments showed that the hydrophobic residues of the nonpolar face of the helix and the strips of positively charged side chains positioned along the polar/nonpolar interface of the helix are crucial for membrane association. Subcellular fractionation by differential centrifugation followed by conditions that distinguish peripheral membrane proteins from integral ones indicate that RGS16 is a peripheral membrane protein. We show further that RGS16 membrane association does not require palmitoylation. Our results, together with other recent findings, have defined a unique membrane association domain with amphipathic features. We believe that these structural features and the mechanism of membrane association of RGS16 are likely to apply to the homologous domains in RGS4 and RGS5.     

Characterizations and functions of regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) in fungi

Proteins that serve as regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) primarily function as GTPase accelerators that promote GTP hydrolysis by the Gα subunits, thereby inactivating the G protein and rapidly switching off G protein-coupled signaling pathways. Since the first RGS protein was identified from the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, more than 30 RGS and RGS-like proteins have been characterized from several model fungi, such as Aspergillus nidulans, Beauveria bassiana, Candida albicans, Fusarium verticillioides, Magnaporthe oryzae, and Metarhizium anisopliae. In this review, the partial biochemical properties and functional domains of RGS and RGS-like proteins were predicted and compared, and the roles of RGS and RGS-like proteins in different fungi were summarized. Moreover, the phylogenetic relationship among RGS and RGS-like proteins from various fungi was analyzed and discussed.     

Phosphorylation and nuclear translocation of a regulator of G protein signaling (RGS10).

Heterotrimeric G proteins are involved in the transduction of hormonal and sensory signals across plasma membranes of eukaryotic cells. Hence, they are a critical point of control for a variety of agents that modulate cellular function. Activation of these proteins is dependent on GTP binding to their alpha (Galpha) subunits. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) bind specifically to activated Galpha proteins, potentiating the intrinsic GTPase activity of the Galpha proteins and thus expediting the termination of Galpha signaling. Although there are several points in most G protein controlled signaling pathways that are affected by reversible covalent modification, little evidence has been shown addressing whether or not the functions of RGS proteins are themselves regulated by such modifications. We report in this study the acute functional regulation of RGS10 thru the specific and inducible phosphorylation of RGS10 protein at serine 168 by cAMP-dependent kinase A. This phosphorylation nullifies the RGS10 activity at the plasma membrane, which controls the G protein-dependent activation of the inwardly rectifying potassium channel. Surprisingly, the phosphorylation-mediated attenuation of RGS10 activity was not manifested in an alteration of its ability to accelerate GTPase activity of Galpha. Rather, the phosphorylation event correlates with translocation of RGS10 from the plasma membrane and cytosol into the nucleus.     

Fluorescence-based assay probing regulator of G protein signaling partner proteins

The regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are one of the essential modulators for the G protein system. Besides regulating G protein signaling by accelerating the GTPase activity of Gα subunits, RGS proteins are implicated in exerting other functions; they are also known to be involved in several diseases. Moreover, the existence of a single RGS protein in plants and its seven-transmembrane domain found in 2003 triggered efforts to unveil detailed structural and functional information of RGS proteins. We present a method for real-time examination of the protein-protein interactions between RGS and Gα subunits. AtRGS1 from plants and RGS4 from mammals were site-directedly labeled with the fluorescent probe Lucifer yellow on engineered cysteine residues and used to interact with different Gα subunits. The physical interactions can be revealed by monitoring the real-time fluorescence changes (8.6% fluorescence increase in mammals and 27.6% in plants); their correlations to functional exertion were shown with a GTPase accelerating activity assay and further confirmed by measurement of K(d). We validate the effectiveness of this method and suggest its application to the exploration of more RGS signaling partner proteins in physiological and pathological studies.