Whither goest the RGS proteins?

Studies of the desensitization of G protein-coupled signal transduction have led to the discovery of a family of guanosine triphosphatase-activating proteins (GAPs) for heterotrimeric G protein alpha subunits - the "regulator of G protein signaling" or RGS proteins. In considering both documented and potential functions of several RGS protein family members with demonstrable multidomain compositions (p115RhoGEF, PDZRhoGEF, Axin, Axil/Conductin, D-AKAP2, the G protein-coupled receptor kinases [GRKs], the DEP/GGL/RGS subfamily [RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, RGS11], and RGS12), this review explores the shift in our appreciation of the RGS proteins from unidimensional desensitizing agents to multifocal signal transduction regulators.     

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.     

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.     

The R7 RGS Protein Family: Multi-Subunit Regulators of Neuronal G Protein Signaling

G protein-coupled receptor signaling pathways mediate the transmission of signals from the extracellular environment to the generation of cellular responses, a process that is critically important for neurons and neurotransmitter action. The ability to promptly respond to rapidly changing stimulation requires timely inactivation of G proteins, a process controlled by a family of specialized proteins known as regulators of G protein signaling (RGS). The R7 group of RGS proteins (R7 RGS) has received special attention due to their pivotal roles in the regulation of a range of crucial neuronal processes such as vision, motor control, reward behavior, and nociception in mammals. Four proteins in this group, RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, and RGS11, share a common molecular organization of three modules: (i) the catalytic RGS domain, (ii) a GGL domain that recruits Gβ₅, an outlying member of the G protein beta subunit family, and (iii) a DEP/DHEX domain that mediates interactions with the membrane anchor proteins R7BP and R9AP. As heterotrimeric complexes, R7 RGS proteins not only associate with and regulate a number of G protein signaling pathway components, but have also been found to form complexes with proteins that are not traditionally associated with G protein signaling. This review summarizes our current understanding of the biology of the R7 RGS complexes including their structure/functional organization, protein–protein interactions, and physiological roles.     

β-arrestin2 plays permissive roles in the inhibitory activities of RGS9-2 on G protein-coupled receptors by maintaining RGS9-2 in the open conformation

Together with G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) kinases (GRKs) and β-arrestins, RGS proteins are the major family of molecules that control the signaling of GPCRs. The expression pattern of one of these RGS family members, RGS9-2, coincides with that of the dopamine D(3) receptor (D(3)R) in the brain, and in vivo studies have shown that RGS9-2 regulates the signaling of D2-like receptors. In this study, β-arrestin2 was found to be required for scaffolding of the intricate interactions among the dishevelled-EGL10-pleckstrin (DEP) domain of RGS9-2, Gβ5, R7-binding protein (R7BP), and D(3)R. The DEP domain of RGS9-2, under the permission of β-arrestin2, inhibited the signaling of D(3)R in collaboration with Gβ5. β-Arrestin2 competed with R7BP and Gβ5 so that RGS9-2 is placed in the cytosolic region in an open conformation which is able to inhibit the signaling of GPCRs. The affinity of the receptor protein for β-arrestin2 was a critical factor that determined the selectivity of RGS9-2 for the receptor it regulates. These results show that β-arrestins function not only as mediators of receptor-G protein uncoupling and initiators of receptor endocytosis but also as scaffolding proteins that control and coordinate the inhibitory effects of RGS proteins on the signaling of certain GPCRs.     

The alpha-helical domain of Galphat determines specific interaction with regulator of G protein signaling 9

RGS proteins (regulators of G protein signaling) are potent accelerators of the intrinsic GTPase activity of G protein alpha subunits (GAPs), thus controlling the response kinetics of a variety of cell signaling processes. Most RGS domains that have been studied have relatively little GTPase activating specificity especially for G proteins within the Gi subfamily. Retinal RGS9 is unique in its ability to act synergistically with a downstream effector cGMP phosphodiesterase to stimulate the GTPase activity of the alpha subunit of transducin, Galphat. Here we report another unique property of RGS9: high specificity for Galphat. The core (RGS) domain of RGS9 (RGS9) stimulates Galphat GTPase activity by 10-fold and Galphai1 GTPase activity by only 2-fold at a concentration of 10 microM. Using chimeric Galphat/Galphai1 subunits we demonstrated that the alpha-helical domain of Galphat imparts this specificity. The functional effects of RGS9 were well correlated with its affinity for activated Galpha subunits as measured by a change in fluorescence of a mutant Galphat (Chi6b) selectively labeled at Cys-210. Kd values for RGS9 complexes with Galphat and Galphai1 calculated from the direct binding and competition experiments were 185 nM and 2 microM, respectively. The gamma subunit of phosphodiesterase increases the GAP activity of RGS9. We demonstrate that this is because of the ability of Pgamma to increase the affinity of RGS9 for Galphat. A distinct, nonoverlapping pattern of RGS and Pgamma interaction with Galphat suggests a unique mechanism of effector-mediated GAP function of the RGS9.     

RGS9-G beta 5 substrate selectivity in photoreceptors. Opposing effects of constituent domains yield high affinity of RGS interaction with the G protein-effector complex

RGS proteins regulate the duration of G protein signaling by increasing the rate of GTP hydrolysis on G protein alpha subunits. The complex of RGS9 with type 5 G protein beta subunit (G beta 5) is abundant in photoreceptors, where it stimulates the GTPase activity of transducin. An important functional feature of RGS9-G beta 5 is its ability to activate transducin GTPase much more efficiently after transducin binds to its effector, cGMP phosphodiesterase. Here we show that different domains of RGS9-G beta 5 make opposite contributions toward this selectivity. G beta 5 bound to the G protein gamma subunit-like domain of RGS9 acts to reduce RGS9 affinity for transducin, whereas other structures restore this affinity specifically for the transducin-phosphodiesterase complex. We suggest that this mechanism may serve as a general principle conferring specificity of RGS protein action.     

RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, and RGS11 stimulate GTPase activity of Gi family G-proteins with differential selectivity and maximal activity

Regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins are GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) of heterotrimeric G-proteins that alter the amplitude and kinetics of receptor-promoted signaling. In this study we defined the G-protein alpha-subunit selectivity of purified Sf9 cell-derived R7 proteins, a subfamily of RGS proteins (RGS6, -7, -9, and -11) containing a Ggamma-like (GGL) domain that mediates dimeric interaction with Gbeta(5). Gbeta(5)/R7 dimers stimulated steady state GTPase activity of Galpha-subunits of the G(i) family, but not of Galpha(q) or Galpha(11), when added to proteoliposomes containing M2 or M1 muscarinic receptor-coupled G-protein heterotrimers. Concentration effect curves of the Gbeta(5)/R7 proteins revealed differences in potencies and efficacies toward Galpha-subunits of the G(i) family. Although all four Gbeta(5)/R7 proteins exhibited similar potencies toward Galpha(o), Gbeta(5)/RGS9 and Gbeta(5)/RGS11 were more potent GAPs of Galpha(i1), Galpha(i2), and Galpha(i3) than were Gbeta(5)/RGS6 and Gbeta(5)/RGS7. The maximal GAP activity exhibited by Gbeta(5)/RGS11 was 2- to 4-fold higher than that of Gbeta(5)/RGS7 and Gbeta(5)/RGS9, with Gbeta(5)/RGS6 exhibiting an intermediate maximal GAP activity. Moreover, the less efficacious Gbeta(5)/RGS7 and Gbeta(5)/RGS9 inhibited Gbeta(5)/RGS11-stimulated GTPase activity of Galpha(o). Therefore, R7 family RGS proteins are G(i) family-selective GAPs with potentially important differences in activities.     

G protein selectivity is a determinant of RGS2 function

RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins are GTPase-activating proteins that attenuate signaling by heterotrimeric G proteins. Whether the biological functions of RGS proteins are governed by quantitative differences in GTPase-activating protein activity toward various classes of Galpha subunits and how G protein selectivity is achieved by differences in RGS protein structure are largely unknown. Here we provide evidence indicating that the function of RGS2 is determined in part by differences in potency toward G(q) versus G(i) family members. RGS2 was 5-fold more potent than RGS4 as an inhibitor of G(q)-stimulated phosphoinositide hydrolysis in vivo. In contrast, RGS4 was 8-fold more potent than RGS2 as an inhibitor of G(i)-mediated signaling. RGS2 mutants were identified that display increased potency toward G(i) family members without affecting potency toward G(q). These mutations and the structure of RGS4-G(i)alpha(1) complexes suggest that RGS2-G(i)alpha interaction is unfavorable in part because of the geometry of the switch I binding pocket of RGS2 and a potential interaction between the alpha8-alpha9 loop of RGS2 and alphaA of G(i) class alpha subunits. The results suggest that the function of RGS2 relative to other RGS family members is governed in part by quantitative differences in activity toward different classes of Galpha subunits.     

RGS9 modulates dopamine signaling in the basal ganglia

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) modulate heterotrimeric G proteins in part by serving as GTPase-activating proteins for Galpha subunits. We examined a role for RGS9-2, an RGS subtype highly enriched in striatum, in modulating dopamine D2 receptor function. Viral-mediated overexpression of RGS9-2 in rat nucleus accumbens (ventral striatum) reduced locomotor responses to cocaine (an indirect dopamine agonist) and to D2 but not to D1 receptor agonists. Conversely, RGS9 knockout mice showed heightened locomotor and rewarding responses to cocaine and related psychostimulants. In vitro expression of RGS9-2 in Xenopus oocytes accelerated the off-kinetics of D2 receptor-induced GIRK currents, consistent with the in vivo data. Finally, chronic cocaine exposure increased RGS9-2 levels in nucleus accumbens. Together, these data demonstrate a functional interaction between RGS9-2 and D2 receptor signaling and the behavioral actions of psychostimulants and suggest that psychostimulant induction of RGS9-2 represents a compensatory adaptation that diminishes drug responsiveness.     

Regulators of G protein signaling 6 and 7. Purification of complexes with gbeta5 and assessment of their effects on g protein-mediated signaling pathways.

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins that contain DEP (disheveled, EGL-10, pleckstrin) and GGL (G protein gamma subunit-like) domains form a subfamily that includes the mammalian RGS proteins RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, and RGS11. We describe the cloning of RGS6 cDNA, the specificity of interaction of RGS6 and RGS7 with G protein beta subunits, and certain biochemical properties of RGS6/beta5 and RGS7/beta5 complexes. After expression in Sf9 cells, complexes of both RGS6 and RGS7 with the Gbeta5 subunit (but not Gbetas 1-4) are found in the cytosol. When purified, these complexes are similar to RGS11/beta5 in that they act as GTPase-activating proteins specifically toward Galpha(o). Unlike conventional G(betagamma) complexes, RGS6/beta5 and RGS7/beta5 do not form heterotrimeric complexes with either Galpha(o)-GDP or Galpha(q)-GDP. Neither RGS6/beta5 nor RGS7/beta5 altered the activity of adenylyl cyclases types I, II, or V, nor were they able to activate either phospholipase C-beta1 or -beta2. However, the RGS/beta5 complexes inhibited beta(1)gamma(2)-mediated activation of phospholipase C-beta2. RGS/beta5 complexes may contribute to the selectivity of signal transduction initiated by receptors coupled to G(i) and G(o) by binding to phospholipase C and stimulating the GTPase activity of Galpha(o).     

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.     

Whither Goest the RGS Proteins?

Studies of the desensitization of G protein-coupled signal transduction have led to the discovery of a family of guanosine triphosphatase-activating proteins (GAPs) for heterotrimeric G protein alpha subunits — the “regulator of G protein signaling” or RGS proteins. In considering both documented and potential functions of several RGS protein family members with demonstrable multidomain compositions (p115RhoGEF, PDZRhoGEF, Axin, Axil/Conductin, D-AKAP2, the G protein-coupled receptor kinases [GRKs], the DEP/GGL/RGS subfamily [RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, RGS11], and RGS12), this review explores the shift in our appreciation of the RGS proteins from unidimensional desensitizing agents to multifocal signal transduction regulators.     

Palmitoylation of a conserved cysteine in the regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain modulates the GTPase-activating activity of RGS4 and RGS10

RGS4 and RGS10 expressed in Sf9 cells are palmitoylated at a conserved Cys residue (Cys(95) in RGS4, Cys(66) in RGS10) in the regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain that is also autopalmitoylated when the purified proteins are incubated with palmitoyl-CoA. RGS4 also autopalmitoylates at a previously identified cellular palmitoylation site, either Cys(2) or Cys(12). The C2A/C12A mutation essentially eliminates both autopalmitoylation and cellular [(3)H]palmitate labeling of Cys(95). Membrane-bound RGS4 is palmitoylated both at Cys(95) and Cys(2/12), but cytosolic RGS4 is not palmitoylated. RGS4 and RGS10 are GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) for the G(i) and G(q) families of G proteins. Palmitoylation of Cys(95) on RGS4 or Cys(66) on RGS10 inhibits GAP activity 80-100% toward either Galpha(i) or Galpha(z) in a single-turnover, solution-based assay. In contrast, when GAP activity was assayed as acceleration of steady-state GTPase in receptor-G protein proteoliposomes, palmitoylation of RGS10 potentiated GAP activity >/=20-fold. Palmitoylation near the N terminus of C95V RGS4 did not alter GAP activity toward soluble Galpha(z) and increased G(z) GAP activity about 2-fold in the vesicle-based assay. Dual palmitoylation of wild-type RGS4 remained inhibitory. RGS protein palmitoylation is thus multi-site, complex in its control, and either inhibitory or stimulatory depending on the RGS protein and its sites of palmitoylation.     

Co-expression of Gbeta5 enhances the function of two Ggamma subunit-like domain-containing regulators of G protein signaling proteins

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) stimulate the GTPase activity of G protein Galpha subunits and probably play additional roles. Some RGS proteins contain a Ggamma subunit-like (GGL) domain, which mediates a specific interaction with Gbeta5. The role of such interactions in RGS function is unclear. RGS proteins can accelerate the kinetics of coupling of G protein-coupled receptors to G-protein-gated inwardly rectifying K(+) (GIRK) channels. Therefore, we coupled m2-muscarinic acetylcholine receptors to GIRK channels in Xenopus oocytes to evaluate the effect of Gbeta5 on RGS function. Co-expression of either RGS7 or RGS9 modestly accelerated GIRK channel kinetics. When Gbeta5 was co-expressed with either RGS7 or RGS9, the acceleration of GIRK channel kinetics was strongly increased over that produced by RGS7 or RGS9 alone. RGS function was not enhanced by co-expression of Gbeta1, and co-expression of Gbeta5 alone had no effect on GIRK channel kinetics. Gbeta5 did not modulate the function either of RGS4, an RGS protein that lacks a GGL domain, or of a functional RGS7 construct in which the GGL domain was omitted. Enhancement of RGS7 function by Gbeta5 was not a consequence of an increase in the amount of plasma membrane or cytosolic RGS7 protein.     

A spatial focusing model for G protein signals. Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) protien-mediated kinetic scaffolding

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) are GTPase-accelerating proteins (GAPs), which can inhibit heterotrimeric G protein pathways. In this study, we provide experimental and theoretical evidence that high concentrations of receptors (as at a synapse) can lead to saturation of GDP-GTP exchange making GTP hydrolysis rate-limiting. This results in local depletion of inactive heterotrimeric G-GDP, which is reversed by RGS GAP activity. Thus, RGS enhances receptor-mediated G protein activation even as it deactivates the G protein. Evidence supporting this model includes a GTP-dependent enhancement of guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate (GTPgammaS) binding to G(i) by RGS. The RGS domain of RGS4 is sufficient for this, not requiring the NH(2)- or COOH-terminal extensions. Furthermore, a kinetic model including only the GAP activity of RGS replicates the GTP-dependent enhancement of GTPgammaS binding observed experimentally. Finally in a Monte Carlo model, this mechanism results in a dramatic "spatial focusing" of active G protein. Near the receptor, G protein activity is maintained even with RGS due to the ability of RGS to reduce depletion of local Galpha-GDP levels permitting rapid recoupling to receptor and maintained G protein activation near the receptor. In contrast, distant signals are suppressed by the RGS, since Galpha-GDP is not depleted there. Thus, a novel RGS-mediated "kinetic scaffolding" mechanism is proposed which narrows the spatial range of active G protein around a cluster of receptors limiting the spill-over of G protein signals to more distant effector molecules, thus enhancing the specificity of G(i) protein signals.     

The Repertoire of Heterotrimeric G Proteins and RGS Proteins in Ciona intestinalis

Background

Heterotrimeric G proteins and regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are key downstream interacting partners in the G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling pathway. The highly versatile GPCR transmembrane signaling system is a consequence of the coupling of a diverse set of receptors to downstream partners that include multiple subforms of G proteins and regulatory proteins including RGS proteins, among others. While the GPCR repertoire of Ciona intestinalis, representing the basal chordate is known, the repertoire of the heterotrimeric G proteins and RGS proteins is unknown.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In the present study, we performed an in-silico genome-wide search of C. intestinalis for its complement of G proteins and RGS proteins. The identification of several one-to-one orthologs of human G proteins at the levels of families, subfamilies and types and of homologs of the human RGS proteins suggests an evolutionarily conserved structure function relationship of the GPCR signaling mechanism in the chordates.

Conclusions

The C. intestinalis genome encodes a highly conserved, albeit, limited repertoire of the heterotrimeric G protein complexes with the size of subunit types comparable with that in lower eukaryotes.     

Regulation of melanin-concentrating hormone receptor 1 signaling by RGS8 with the receptor third intracellular loop

Melanin-concentrating hormone (MCH) receptor 1 (MCH1R) belongs to the class A G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The MCH-MCH1R system plays a central role in energy metabolism, and thus the regulation of signaling pathways activated by this receptor is of particular interest. Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins work by increasing the GTPase activity of G protein alpha subunits and attenuate cellular responses coupled with G proteins. Recent evidence has shown that RGS proteins are not simple G protein regulators but equally inhibit the signaling from various GPCRs. Here, we demonstrate that RGS8, which is highly expressed in the brain, functions as a negative modulator of MCH1R signaling. By using biochemical approaches, RGS8 was found to selectively and directly bind to the third intracellular (i3) loop of MCH1R in vitro. When expressed in HEK293T cells, RGS8 and MCH1R colocalized to the plasma membrane and RGS8 potently inhibited the calcium mobilization induced by MCH. The N-terminal 9 amino acids of RGS8 were required for the optimal capacity to downregulate the receptor signaling. Furthermore, Arg(253) and Arg(256) at the distal end of the i3 loop were found to comprise a structurally important site for the functional interaction with RGS8, since coexpression of RGS8 with R253Q/R256Q mutant receptors resulted in a loss of induction of MCH-stimulated calcium mobilization. This functional association suggests that RGS8 may represent a new therapeutic target for the development of novel pharmaceutical agents.     

N-terminal half of the cGMP phosphodiesterase gamma-subunit contributes to stabilization of the GTPase-accelerating protein complex

In the visual signal terminating transition state, the cyclic GMP phosphodiesterase (PDE6) inhibitory γ-subunit (PDEγ) stimulates GTPase activity of the α-subunit of transducin (αt) by enhancing the interaction between αt and its regulator of G protein signaling (RGS9), which is constitutively bound to the type 5 G protein β-subunit (β5). Although it is known from a crystal structure of partial molecules that the PDEγ C terminus contacts with both αt and RGS9, contributions from the intrinsically disordered PDEγ N-terminal half remain unclear. In this study, we were able to investigate this issue using a photolabel transfer strategy that allows for mapping the interface of full-length proteins. We observed label transfer from PDEγ N-terminal positions 50, 30, and 16 to RGS9·β5 in the GTPase-accelerating protein (GAP) complex composed of PDEγ·αt·RGS9·β5. In support of a direct PDEγ N-terminal interaction with RGS9·β5, the PDEγ N-terminal peptide PDEγ(1-61) abolished label transfer to RGS9·β5, and another N-terminal peptide, PDEγ(10-30), disassembled the GAP complex in label transfer and pulldown experiments. Furthermore, we determined that the PDEγ C-terminal interaction with αt was enhanced whereas the N-terminal interaction was weakened upon changing the αt conformation from the signaling state to the transition state. This "rearrangement" of PDEγ domain interactions with αt appears to facilitate the interaction of the PDEγ N-terminal half with RGS9·β5 and hence its contribution to optimal stabilization of the GAP complex.