Modulation of subfamily B/R4 RGS protein function by 14-3-3 proteins

Regulator of G protein signalling (RGS) proteins are primarily known for their ability to act as GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) and thus attenuate G protein function within G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signalling pathways. However, RGS proteins have been found to interact with additional binding partners, and this has introduced more complexity to our understanding of their potential role in vivo. Here, we identify a novel interaction between RGS proteins (RGS4, RGS5, RGS16) and the multifunctional protein 14-3-3. Two isoforms, 14-3-3β and 14-3-3ε, directly interact with all three purified RGS proteins and data from in vitro steady state GTP hydrolysis assays show that 14-3-3 inhibits the GTPase activity of RGS4 and RGS16, but has limited effects on RGS5 under comparable conditions. Moreover in a competitive pull-down experiment, 14-3-3ε competes with Go for RGS4, but not for RGS5. This mechanism is further reinforced in living cells, where 14-3-3ε sequesters RGS4 in the cytoplasm and impedes its recruitment to the plasma membrane by G protein. Thus, 14-3-3 might act as a molecular chelator, preventing RGS proteins from interacting with G, and ultimately prolonging the signal transduction pathway. In conclusion, our findings suggest that 14-3-3 proteins may indirectly promote GPCR signalling via their inhibitory effects on RGS GAP function.     

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。     

Delineation of ligand binding and receptor signaling activities of purified P2Y receptors reconstituted with heterotrimeric G proteins

P2Y receptors are G protein coupled receptors that respond to extracellular nucleotides to promote a multitude of signaling events. Our laboratory has purified several P2Y receptors with the goal of providing molecular insight into their: (1) ligand binding properties, (2) G protein signaling selectivities, and (3) regulation by RGS proteins and other signaling cohorts. The human P2Y₁ receptor and the human P2Y₁₂ receptor, both of which are intimately involved in ADP-mediated platelet aggregation, were purified to near homogeneity and studied in detail. After high-level expression from recombinant baculovirus infection of Sf9 insect cells, approximately 50% of the receptors were successfully extracted with digitonin. Purification of nearly homogeneous epitope-tagged P2Y receptor was achieved using metal-affinity chromatography followed by other traditional chromatographic steps. Yields of purified P2Y receptors range from 10 to 100 g/l of infected cells. Once purified, the receptors were reconstituted in model lipid vesicles along with their cognate G proteins to assess receptor function. Agonist-promoted increases in steady-state GTPase assays demonstrated the functional activity of the reconstituted purified receptor. We have utilized this reconstitution system to assess the action of various nucleotide agonists and antagonists, the relative G protein selectivity, and the influence of other proteins, such as phospholipase C, on P2Y receptor-promoted signaling. Furthermore, we have identified the RGS expression profile of platelets and have begun to assess the action of these RGS proteins in a reconstituted P2Y receptor/G protein platelet model.     

Molecular organization and dynamics of the melatonin MT1 receptor/RGS20/Gi protein complex reveal asymmetry of receptor dimers for RGS and Gi coupling

Functional asymmetry of G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) dimers has been reported for an increasing number of cases, but the molecular architecture of signalling units associated to these dimers remains unclear. Here, we characterized the molecular complex of the melatonin MT₁ receptor, which directly and constitutively couples to G_i proteins and the regulator of G‐protein signalling (RGS) 20. The molecular organization of the ternary MT₁/G_i/RGS20 complex was monitored in its basal and activated state by bioluminescence resonance energy transfer between probes inserted at multiple sites of the complex. On the basis of the reported crystal structures of G_i and the RGS domain, we propose a model wherein one G_i and one RGS20 protein bind to separate protomers of MT₁ dimers in a pre‐associated complex that rearranges upon agonist activation. This model was further validated with MT₁/MT₂ heterodimers. Collectively, our data extend the concept of asymmetry within GPCR dimers, reinforce the notion of receptor specificity for RGS proteins and highlight the advantage of GPCRs organized as dimers in which each protomer fulfils its specific task by binding to different GPCR‐interacting proteins.     

Potent inhibition of angiotensin AT1 receptor signaling by RGS8: importance of the C-terminal third exon part of its RGS domain

R4/B subfamily RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins play roles in regulation of many GPCR-mediated responses. Multiple RGS proteins are usually expressed in a cell, and it is difficult to point out which RGS protein species are functionally important in the cell. To evaluate intrinsic potency of these RGS proteins, we compared inhibitory effects of RGS1, RGS2, RGS3, RGS4, RGS5, RGS8 and RGS16 on AT₁ receptor signaling. Intracellular Ca²⁺ responses to angiotensin II were markedly attenuated by transiently expressed RGS2, RGS3 and RGS8, compared to weak inhibition by RGS1, RGS4, RGS5 and RGS16. N-terminally deleted RGS2 (RGS2 domain) lost this potent inhibitory effect, whereas RGS domains of RGS3 and RGS8 showed strong inhibition similar to those of the full-length proteins. To investigate key determinants that specify the differences in potency, we constructed chimeric domains by replacing one or two of three exon parts of RGS8 domain with the corresponding part of RGS5. The chimeric RGS8 domains containing the first or the second exon part of RGS5 showed strong inhibitory effects similar to that of wild type RGS8, but the chimeric domain with the third exon part of RGS5 lost its activity. On the contrary, replacement of the third exon part of RGS5 with the corresponding residues of RGS8 increased the inhibitory effect. The role of the third exon part of RGS8 domain was further confirmed with the chimeric RGS8/RGS4 domains. These results indicate the potent inhibitory activity of RGS8 among R4/B subfamily proteins and importance of the third exon.     

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.     

Differential capacities of the RGS1, RGS16 and RGS-GAIP regulators of G protein signaling to enhance alpha2A-adrenoreceptor agonist-stimulated GTPase activity of G(o1)alpha

Recombinant RGS1, RGS16 and RGS-GAIP, but not RGS2, were able to substantially further stimulate the maximal GTPase activity of G(o1)alpha promoted by agonists at the alpha2A-adrenoreceptor in a concentration-dependent manner. Kinetic analysis of the regulation of an alpha2A-adrenoreceptor-G(o1)alpha fusion protein by all three RGS proteins revealed that they had similar affinities for the receptor-G protein fusion. However, their maximal effects on GTP hydrolysis varied over threefold with RGS16 > RGS1 > RGS-GAIP. Both RGS1 and RGS16 reduced the potency of the alpha2A-adrenoreceptor agonist adrenaline by some 10-fold. A lower potency shift was observed for the partial agonist UK14304 and the effect was absent for the weak partial agonist oxymetazoline. Each of these RGS proteins altered the intrinsic activity of both UK14304 and oxymetazoline relative to adrenaline. Such results require the RGS interaction with G(o1)alpha to alter the conformation of the alpha2A-adrenoreceptor and are thus consistent with models invoking direct interactions between RGS proteins and receptors. These studies demonstrate that RGS1, RGS16 and RGS-GAIP show a high degree of selectivity to regulate alpha2A-adrenoreceptor-activated G(o1)alpha rather than G(i1)alpha, G(i2)alpha or G(i3)alpha and different capacities to inactivate this G protein.     

Non-canonical functions of RGS proteins

Regulators of G protein signalling (RGS) proteins are united into a family by the presence of the RGS domain which serves as a GTPase-activating protein (GAP) for various Galpha subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins. Through this mechanism, RGS proteins regulate signalling of numerous G protein-coupled receptors. In addition to the RGS domains, RGS proteins contain diverse regions of various lengths that regulate intracellular localization, GAP activity or receptor selectivity of RGS proteins, often through interaction with other partners. However, it is becoming increasingly appreciated that through these non-RGS regions, RGS proteins can serve non-canonical functions distinct from inactivation of Galpha subunits. This review summarizes the data implicating RGS proteins in the (i) regulation of G protein signalling by non-canonical mechanisms, (ii) regulation of non-G protein signalling, (iii) signal transduction from receptors not coupled to G proteins, (iv) activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases, and (v) non-canonical functions in the nucleus.     

Potent and selective inhibition of angiotensin AT1 receptor signaling by RGS2: roles of its N-terminal domain

Emerging evidence indicates that R4/B subfamily RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins play roles in functional regulation in the cardiovascular system. In this study, we compared effects of three R4/B subfamily proteins, RGS2, RGS4 and RGS5 on angiotensin AT1 receptor signaling, and investigated roles of the N-terminus of RGS2. In HEK293T cells expressing AT1 receptor stably, intracellular Ca²⁺ responses induced by angiotensin II were much more strongly attenuated by RGS2 than by RGS4 and RGS5. N-terminally deleted RGS2 proteins lost this potent inhibitory effect. Replacement of the N-terminal residues 1-71 of RGS2 with the corresponding residues (1-51) of RGS5 decreased significantly the inhibitory effect. On the other hand, replacement of the residues 1-51 of RGS5 with the residues 1-71 of RGS2 increased the inhibitory effect dramatically. Furthermore, we investigated functional contribution of N-terminal subdomains of RGS2, namely, an N-terminal region (residues 16-55) with an amphipathic α helix domain (the subdomain N1), a probable non-specific membrane-targeting subdomain, and another region (residues 56-71) between the α helix and the RGS box (the subdomain N2), a probable GPCR-recognizing subdomain. RGS2 chimera proteins with the residues 1-33 or 34-52 of RGS5 showed weak inhibitory activity, and either of RGS5 chimera proteins with residues 1-55 or 56-71 of RGS2 showed strong inhibitory effects on AT1 receptor signaling. The present study indicates the essential roles of both N-terminal subdomains for the potent inhibitory activity of RGS2 on AT1 receptor signaling.     

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.     

Regulation of G Protein-Coupled Receptor Signaling by A-Kinase Anchoring Proteins

Specificity of transduction events is controlled at the molecular level by scaffold, anchoring, and adaptor proteins, which position signaling enzymes at proper subcellular localization. This allows their efficient catalytic activation and accurate substrate selection. A-kinase anchoring proteins (AKAPs) are group of functionally related proteins that compartmentalize the cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) and other signaling enyzmes at precise subcellular sites in close proximity to their physiological substrate(s) and favor specific phosphorylation events. Recent evidence suggests that AKAP transduction complexes play a key role in regulating G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling. Regulation can occur at multiple levels because AKAPs have been shown both to directly modulate GPCR function and to act as downstream effectors of GPCR signaling. In this minireview, we focus on the molecular mechanisms through which AKAP-signaling complexes modulate GPCR transduction cascades.     

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.     

Modulation of Endothelin-A Receptor,Gα Subunit,and RGS2 Expression during H9c2 Cardiomyoblast Differentiation

In cardiac myocytes, growth responses depend on activation of G protein-coupled receptors interacting with G_q/11 protein subfamily members. Endothelin receptors of the ET_A subtype belong to this receptor group inducing hypertrophic responses. To understand the role of ET_A receptors and signal transduction proteins in modulating cell growth, we analyzed the pharmacological profile of this receptor, its level of expression together with those of Gα subunits and the RGS2 protein in cardiomyoblasts differentiating into the cardiac phenotype. H9c2 rat cardiomyoblasts were grown in the presence of 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) or 1% FBS plus all-trans-retinoic acid to induce the cardiac phenotype. The pharmacological properties of ET_A receptors were investigated by competition-binding experiments, whereas the protein expression profile was analyzed by immunoblot and immunocytochemistry. The pharmacological profile of ET_A receptors changed during differentiation of cardiomyoblasts into cardiomyocytes, and the amount of expressed receptor appeared to increase. Immunocytochemistry also showed a marked increase of receptor expression on cell membranes of differentiated cardiomyocytes. Among the other signaling proteins examined, both Gα_q/11 and RGS2 expression decreased in cells with the cardiac phenotype. Our results demonstrate that the expression of key proteins (ET_A receptor, Gα_q/11, and RGS2) involved in signal transduction of hypertrophic stimuli is modulated during cell differentiation and correlates with the cardiac phenotype.     

Amino-terminal Cysteine Residues Differentially Influence RGS4 Protein Plasma Membrane Targeting, Intracellular Trafficking, and Function

Regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins are potent inhibitors of heterotrimeric G-protein signaling. RGS4 attenuates G-protein activity in several tissues. Previous work demonstrated that cysteine palmitoylation on residues in the amino-terminal (Cys-2 and Cys-12) and core domains (Cys-95) of RGS4 is important for protein stability, plasma membrane targeting, and GTPase activating function. To date Cys-2 has been the priority target for RGS4 regulation by palmitoylation based on its putative role in stabilizing the RGS4 protein. Here, we investigate differences in the contribution of Cys-2 and Cys-12 to the intracellular localization and function of RGS4. Inhibition of RGS4 palmitoylation with 2-bromopalmitate dramatically reduced its localization to the plasma membrane. Similarly, mutation of the RGS4 amphipathic helix (L23D) prevented membrane localization and its G(q) inhibitory function. Together, these data suggest that both RGS4 palmitoylation and the amphipathic helix domain are required for optimal plasma membrane targeting and function of RGS4. Mutation of Cys-12 decreased RGS4 membrane targeting to a similar extent as 2-bromopalmitate, resulting in complete loss of its G(q) inhibitory function. Mutation of Cys-2 did not impair plasma membrane targeting but did partially impair its function as a G(q) inhibitor. Comparison of the endosomal distribution pattern of wild type and mutant RGS4 proteins with TGN38 indicated that palmitoylation of these two cysteines contributes differentially to the intracellular trafficking of RGS4. These data show for the first time that Cys-2 and Cys-12 play markedly different roles in the regulation of RGS4 membrane localization, intracellular trafficking, and G(q) inhibitory function via mechanisms that are unrelated to RGS4 protein stabilization.     

Reversible translocation of p115-RhoGEF by G(12/13)-coupled receptors

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are important targets for medicinal agents. Four different G protein families, G(s), G(i), G(q), and G(12), engage in their linkage to activation of receptor-specific signal transduction pathways. G(12) proteins were more recently studied, and upon activation by GPCRs they mediate activation of RhoGTPase guanine nucleotide exchange factors (RhoGEFs), which in turn activate the small GTPase RhoA. RhoA is involved in many cellular and physiological aspects, and a dysfunction of the G(12/13)-Rho pathway can lead to hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, stroke, impaired wound healing and immune cell functions, cancer progression and metastasis, or asthma. In this study, regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain-containing RhoGEFs were tagged with enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) to detect their subcellular localization and translocation upon receptor activation. Constitutively active Galpha(12) and Galpha(13) mutants induced redistribution of these RhoGEFs from the cytosol to the plasma membrane. Furthermore, a pronounced and rapid translocation of p115-RhoGEF from the cytosol to the plasma membrane was observed upon activation of several G(12/13)-coupled GPCRs in a cell type-independent fashion. Plasma membrane translocation of p115-RhoGEF stimulated by a GPCR agonist could be completely and rapidly reversed by subsequent application of an antagonist for the respective GPCR, that is, p115-RhoGEF relocated back to the cytosol. The translocation of RhoGEF by G(12/13)-linked GPCRs can be quantified and therefore used for pharmacological studies of the pathway, and to discover active compounds in a G(12/13)-related disease context.     

RGS7 Attenuates Signal Transduction Through the Gαq Family of Heterotrimeric G Proteins in Mammalian Cells

Abstract: The RGS proteins are a recently discovered family of G protein regulators that have been shown to act as GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) on the G_αi and G_αq subfamilies of the heterotrimeric G proteins. Here, we demonstrate that RGS7 is a potent GAP in vitro on G_αi1 and G_αo heterotrimeric proteins and that RGS7 acts to down-regulate G_αq-mediated calcium mobilization in a whole-cell assay system using a transient expression protocol. This RGS protein and RGS4 are reported to be expressed predominantly in brain, and in situ hybridization studies have revealed similarities in the regional distribution of RGS and G_αq mRNA expression. Our findings provide further evidence to support a functional role for RGS4 and RGS7 in G_αq-mediated signaling in the CNS.     

Measurement of heterotrimeric G-protein and regulators of G-protein signaling interactions by time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer

G-protein-coupled receptors transduce their signals through G-protein subunits which in turn are subject to modulation by other intracellular proteins such as the regulators of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins. We have developed a cell-free, homogeneous (mix and read format), time-resolved fluorescence resonance energy transfer (TR-FRET) assay to monitor heterotrimeric G-protein subunit interactions and the interaction of the G alpha subunit with RGS4. The assay uses a FRET pair consisting of a terbium cryptate chelate donor spectrally matched to an Alexa546 fluor acceptor, each of which is conjugated to separate protein binding partners, these being G alpha(i1):beta4gamma2 or G alpha(i1):RGS4. Under conditions favoring specific binding between labeled partners, high-affinity interactions were observed as a rapid increase (>fivefold) in the FRET signal. The specificity of these interactions was demonstrated using denaturing or competitive conditions which caused significant reductions in fluorescence (50-85%) indicating that labeled proteins were no longer in close proximity. We also report differential binding effects as a result of altered activation state of the G alpha(i1) protein. This assay confirms that interactions between G-protein subunits and RGS4 can be measured using TR-FRET in a cell- and receptor-free environment.