Toll-like receptor signaling alters the expression of regulator of G protein signaling proteins in dendritic cells: implications for G protein-coupled receptor signaling

Conserved structural motifs on pathogens trigger pattern recognition receptors present on APCs such as dendritic cells (DCs). An important class of such receptors is the Toll-like receptors (TLRs). TLR signaling triggers a cascade of events in DCs that includes modified chemokine and cytokine production, altered chemokine receptor expression, and changes in signaling through G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). One mechanism by which TLR signaling could modify GPCR signaling is by altering the expression of regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins. In this study, we show that human monocyte-derived DCs constitutively express significant amounts of RGS2, RGS10, RGS14, RGS18, and RGS19, and much lower levels of RGS3 and RGS13. Engagement of TLR3 or TLR4 on monocyte-derived DCs induces RGS16 and RGS20, markedly increases RGS1 expression, and potently down-regulates RGS18 and RGS14 without modifying other RGS proteins. A similar pattern of Rgs protein expression occurred in immature bone marrow-derived mouse DCs stimulated to mature via TLR4 signaling. The changes in RGS18 and RGS1 expression are likely important for DC function, because both proteins inhibit G alpha(i)- and G alpha(q)-mediated signaling and can reduce CXC chemokine ligand (CXCL)12-, CC chemokine ligand (CCL)19-, or CCL21-induced cell migration. Providing additional evidence, bone marrow-derived DCs from Rgs1(-/-) mice have a heightened migratory response to both CXCL12 and CCL19 when compared with similar DCs prepared from wild-type mice. These results indicate that the level and functional status of RGS proteins in DCs significantly impact their response to GPCR ligands such as chemokines.     

Cellular mechanisms that determine selective RGS protein regulation of G protein-coupled receptor signaling

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS proteins) bind directly to activated Galpha subunits to inhibit their signaling. However, recent findings show that RGS proteins selectively regulate signaling by certain G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) in cells, irrespective of the coupled G protein. New studies support an emerging model that suggests RGS proteins utilize both direct and indirect mechanisms to form stable functional pairs with preferred GPCRs to selectively modulate the signaling functions of those receptors and linked G proteins. Here, we discuss these findings and their implications for established models of GPCR signaling.     

Regulators of G protein signaling & drugs of abuse

Drugs of abuse such as opioids and stimulants share a common dopaminergic reward pathway; however, in response to continual intermittent exposure to such drugs, there are neuronal alterations leading to changes in behavior. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) are proteins that negatively regulate G protein signaling and are expressed in brain areas important for the pharmacology of abused drugs. Moreover, the level of expression of several of these proteins is regulated by abused drugs. In this article, we discuss RGS proteins, their regulation by morphine and stimulants, and how altered levels of these proteins affect cell signaling to contribute to the pharmacology and behavioral consequence of abused drugs. Finally, we consider if RGS proteins represent viable targets for drug abuse medications.     

5-HT1A receptor-mediated phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK1/2) is modulated by regulator of G protein signaling protein 19

The 5-HT1A receptor is a G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) that activates G proteins of the Gαi/o family. 5-HT1A receptors expressed in the raphe, hippocampus and prefrontal cortex are implicated in the control of mood and are targets for anti-depressant drugs. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are members of a large family that play important roles in signal transduction downstream of G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). The main role of RGS proteins is to act as GTPase accelerating proteins (GAPs) to dampen or negatively regulate GPCR-mediated signaling. We have shown that a mouse expressing Gαi2 that is insensitive to all RGS protein GAP activity has an anti-depressant-like phenotype due to increased signaling of postsynaptic 5-HT1A receptors, thus implicating the 5-HT1A receptor–Gαi2 complex as an important target. Here we confirm that RGS proteins act as GAPs to regulate signaling to adenylate cyclase and the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway downstream of the 5-HT1A receptor, using RGS-insensitive Gαi2 protein expressed in C6 cells. We go on to use short hairpin RNA (shRNA) to show that RGS19 is responsible for the GAP activity in C6 cells and also that RGS19 acts as a GAP for 5-HT1A receptor signaling in human neuroblastoma SH-SY5Y cells and primary hippocampal neurons. In addition, in both cell types the synergy between 5-HT1A receptor and the fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 in stimulating the MAPK pathway is enhanced following shRNA reduction of RGS19 expression. Thus RGS19 may be a viable new target for anti-depressant medications.     

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.     

GIPC recruits GAIP (RGS19) to attenuate dopamine D2 receptor signaling

Pleiotropic G proteins are essential for the action of hormones and neurotransmitters and are activated by stimulation of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCR), which initiates heterotrimer dissociation of the G protein, exchange of GDP for GTP on its Galpha subunit and activation of effector proteins. Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins regulate this cascade and can be recruited to the membrane upon GPCR activation. Direct functional interaction between RGS and GPCR has been hypothesized. We show that recruitment of GAIP (RGS19) by the dopamine D2 receptor (D2R), a GPCR, required the scaffold protein GIPC (GAIP-interacting protein, C terminus) and that all three were coexpressed in neurons and neuroendocrine cells. Dynamic translocation of GAIP to the plasma membrane and coassembly in a protein complex in which GIPC was a required component was dictated by D2R activation and physical interactions. In addition, two different D2R-mediated responses were regulated by the GTPase activity of GAIP at the level of the G protein coupling in a GIPC-dependent manner. Since GIPC exclusively interacted with GAIP and selectively with subsets of GPCR, this mechanism may serve to sort GPCR signaling in cells that usually express a large repertoire of GPCRs, G proteins, and RGS.     

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.     

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.     

G protein-coupled receptor kinase function is essential for chemosensation in C. elegans

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediate diverse signaling processes, including olfaction. G protein-coupled receptor kinases (GRKs) are important regulators of G protein signal transduction that specifically phosphorylate activated GPCRs to terminate signaling. Despite previously described roles for GRKs in GPCR signal downregulation, animals lacking C. elegans G protein-coupled receptor kinase-2 (Ce-grk-2) function are not hypersensitive to odorants. Instead, decreased Ce-grk-2 function in adult sensory neurons profoundly disrupts chemosensation, based on both behavioral analysis and Ca(2+) imaging. Although mammalian arrestin proteins cooperate with GRKs in receptor desensitization, loss of C. elegans arrestin-1 (arr-1) does not disrupt chemosensation. Either overexpression of the C. elegans Galpha subunit odr-3 or loss of eat-16, which encodes a regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) protein, restores chemosensation in Ce-grk-2 mutants. These results demonstrate that loss of GRK function can lead to reduced GPCR signal transduction and suggest an important role for RGS proteins in the regulation of chemosensation.     

Structural biology of G protein‐coupled receptor signaling complexes

G protein‐coupled receptors (GPCRs) constitute the largest family of cell surface receptors that mediate numerous cell signaling pathways, and are targets of more than one‐third of clinical drugs. Thanks to the advancement of novel structural biology technologies, high‐resolution structures of GPCRs in complex with their signaling transducers, including G‐protein and arrestin, have been determined. These 3D complex structures have significantly improved our understanding of the molecular mechanism of GPCR signaling and provided a structural basis for signaling‐biased drug discovery targeting GPCRs. Here we summarize structural studies of GPCR signaling complexes with G protein and arrestin using rhodopsin as a model system, and highlight the key features of GPCR conformational states in biased signaling including the sequence motifs of receptor TM6 that determine selective coupling of G proteins, and the phosphorylation codes of GPCRs for arrestin recruitment. We envision the future of GPCR structural biology not only to solve more high‐resolution complex structures but also to show stepwise GPCR signaling complex assembly and disassembly and dynamic process of GPCR signal transduction.     

New roles for Galpha and RGS proteins: communication continues despite pulling sisters apart

Large G protein alpha subunits and their attendant regulators of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins control both intercellular signaling and asymmetric cell divisions by distinct pathways. The classical pathway, found throughout higher eukaryotic organisms, mediates intercellular communication via hormone binding to G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Recent studies have led to the discovery of GPCR-independent activation of Galpha subunits by the guanine nucleotide exchange factor RIC-8 in both asymmetric cell division and synaptic vesicle priming in metazoan organisms. Protein-protein interactions and protein function in each pathway are driven through the cycle of GTP binding and hydrolysis by the Galpha subunit. This review builds a conceptual framework for understanding RIC-8-mediated pathways by comparison with the mechanism of classical G-protein activation and inhibition in GPCR signaling.     

Allosteric Pathways Originating at Cysteine Residues in Regulators of G-Protein Signaling Proteins

Regulators of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins play a central role in modulating signaling via G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). Specifically, RGS proteins bind to activated Gα subunits in G-proteins, accelerate the GTP hydrolysis, and thereby rapidly dampen GPCR signaling. Therefore, covalent molecules targeting conserved cysteine residues among RGS proteins have emerged as potential candidates to inhibit the RGS/Gα protein-protein interaction and enhance GPCR signaling. Although these inhibitors bind to conserved cysteine residues among RGS proteins, we have previously suggested [J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2018;140:3454–3460] that their potencies and specificities are related to differential protein dynamics among RGS proteins. Using data from all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, we reveal these differences in dynamics of RGS proteins by partitioning the protein structural space into a network of communities that allow allosteric signals to propagate along unique pathways originating at inhibitor binding sites and terminating at the RGS/Gα protein-protein interface.     

The role of RGS protein in agonist-dependent relaxation of GIRK currents in Xenopus oocytes

G protein coupled inward rectifier K⁺ channels (GIRK) are activated by the G_βγ subunits of G proteins upon activation of G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs). Receptor-stimulated GIRK currents are known to possess a curious property, termed “agonist-dependent relaxation,” denoting a slow current increase upon stepping the membrane voltage from positive to negative potentials. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins have earlier been implicated in this phenomenon since RGS coexpression was required for relaxation to be observed in heterologous expression systems. However, a recent study presented contrasting evidence that GIRK current relaxation reflects voltage sensitive agonist binding to the GPCR. The present study re-examined the role of RGS protein in agonist-dependent relaxation and found that RGS coexpression is not necessary for the relaxation phenomenon. However, RGS4 speeds up relaxation kinetics, allowing the phenomenon to be observed using shorter voltage steps. These findings resolve the controversy regarding the role of RGS protein vs. GPCR voltage sensitivity in mediating agonist-dependent relaxation of GIRK currents.     

RGS2 binds directly and selectively to the M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor third intracellular loop to modulate Gq/11alpha signaling

RGS proteins serve as GTPase-activating proteins and/or effector antagonists to modulate Galpha signaling events. In live cells, members of the B/R4 subfamily of RGS proteins selectively modulate G protein signaling depending on the associated receptor (GPCR). Here we examine whether GPCRs selectively recruit RGS proteins to modulate linked G protein signaling. We report the novel finding that RGS2 binds directly to the third intracellular (i3) loop of the G(q/11)-coupled M1 muscarinic cholinergic receptor (M1 mAChR; M1i3). This interaction is selective because closely related RGS16 does not bind M1i3, and neither RGS2 nor RGS16 binds to the G(i/o)-coupled M2i3 loop. When expressed in cells, RGS2 and M1 mAChR co-localize to the plasma membrane whereas RGS16 does not. The N-terminal region of RGS2 is both necessary and sufficient for binding to M1i3, and RGS2 forms a stable heterotrimeric complex with both activated G(q)alpha and M1i3. RGS2 potently inhibits M1 mAChR-mediated phosphoinositide hydrolysis in cell membranes by acting as an effector antagonist. Deletion of the N terminus abolishes this effector antagonist activity of RGS2 but not its GTPase-activating protein activity toward G(11)alpha in membranes. These findings predict a model where the i3 loops of GPCRs selectively recruit specific RGS protein(s) via their N termini to regulate the linked G protein. Consistent with this model, we find that the i3 loops of the mAChR subtypes (M1-M5) exhibit differential profiles for binding distinct B/R4 RGS family members, indicating that this novel mechanism for GPCR modulation of RGS signaling may generally extend to other receptors and RGS proteins.     

Differential effects of RGS proteins on G alpha(q) and G alpha(11) activity

Heterotrimeric G proteins play a pivotal role in GPCR signalling; they link receptors to intracellular effectors and their inactivation by RGS proteins is a key factor in resetting the pathway following stimulation. The precise GPCR:G protein:RGS combination determines the nature and duration of the response. Investigating the activity of particular combinations is difficult in cells which contain multiples of each component. We have therefore utilised a previously characterised yeast system to express mammalian proteins in isolation. Human G alpha(q) and G alpha(11) spontaneously activated the yeast pheromone-response pathway by a mechanism which required the formation of G alpha-GTP. This provided an assay for the specific activity of human RGS proteins. RGS1, RGS2, RGS3 and RGS4 inhibited the spontaneous activity of both G alpha(q) and G alpha(11) but, in contrast, RGS5 and RGS16 were much less effective against G alpha(11) than G alpha(q). Interestingly, RGS2 and RGS3 were able to inhibit signalling from the constitutively active G alpha(q)QL/G alpha(11)QL mutants, confirming the GAP-independent activity of these RGS proteins. To determine if the RGS-G alpha specificity was maintained under conditions of GPCR stimulation, minor modifications to the C-terminus of G alpha(q)/G alpha(11) enabled coupling to an endogenous receptor. RGS2 and RGS3 were effective inhibitors of both G alpha subunits even at high levels of receptor stimulation, emphasising their GAP-independent activity. At low levels of stimulation RGS5 and RGS16 retained their differential G alpha activity, further highlighting that RGS proteins can discriminate between two very closely related G alpha subunits.     

GPR158/179 regulate G protein signaling by controlling localization and activity of the RGS7 complexes

The extent and temporal characteristics of G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling are shaped by the regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins, which promote G protein deactivation. With hundreds of GPCRs and dozens of RGS proteins, compartmentalization plays a key role in establishing signaling specificity. However, the molecular details and mechanisms of this process are poorly understood. In this paper, we report that the R7 group of RGS regulators is controlled by interaction with two previously uncharacterized orphan GPCRs: GPR158 and GPR179. We show that GPR158/179 recruited RGS complexes to the plasma membrane and augmented their ability to regulate GPCR signaling. The loss of GPR179 in a mouse model of night blindness prevented targeting of RGS to the postsynaptic compartment of bipolar neurons in the retina, illuminating the role of GPR179 in night vision. We propose that the interaction of RGS proteins with orphan GPCRs promotes signaling selectivity in G protein pathways.     

Two RGS proteins that inhibit Galpha(o) and Galpha(q) signaling in C. elegans neurons require a Gbeta(5)-like subunit for function

BACKGROUND: Gbeta proteins have traditionally been thought to complex with Ggamma proteins to function as subunits of G protein heterotrimers. The divergent Gbeta(5) protein, however, can bind either Ggamma proteins or regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins that contain a G gamma-like (GGL) domain. RGS proteins inhibit G protein signaling by acting as Galpha GTPase activators. While Gbeta(5) appears to bind RGS proteins in vivo, its association with Ggamma proteins in vivo has not been clearly demonstrated. It is unclear how Gbeta(5) might influence RGS activity. In C. elegans there are exactly two GGL-containing RGS proteins, EGL-10 and EAT-16, and they inhibit Galpha(o) and Galpha(q) signaling, respectively. RESULTS: We knocked out the gene encoding the C. elegans Gbeta(5) ortholog, GPB-2, to determine its physiological roles in G protein signaling. The gpb-2 mutation reduces the functions of EGL-10 and EAT-16 to levels comparable to those found in egl-10 and eat-16 null mutants. gpb-2 knockout animals are viable, and exhibit no obvious defects beyond those that can be attributed to a reduction of EGL-10 or EAT-16 function. GPB-2 protein is nearly absent in eat-16; egl-10 double mutants, and EGL-10 protein is severely diminished in gpb-2 mutants. CONCLUSIONS: Gbeta(5) functions in vivo complexed with GGL-containing RGS proteins. In the absence of Gbeta(5), these RGS proteins have little or no function. The formation of RGS-Gbeta(5) complexes is required for the expression or stability of both the RGS and Gbeta(5) proteins. Appropriate RGS-Gbeta(5) complexes regulate both Galpha(o) and Galpha(q) proteins in vivo.     

A nanomolar-potency small molecule inhibitor of regulator of G-protein signaling proteins

Regulators of G-protein signaling (RGS) proteins are potent negative modulators of signal transduction through G-protein-coupled receptors. They function by binding to activated (GTP-bound) Gα subunits and accelerating the rate of GTP hydrolysis. Modulation of RGS activity by small molecules is an attractive mechanism for fine-tuning GPCR signaling for therapeutic and research purposes. Here we describe the pharmacologic properties and mechanism of action of CCG-50014, the most potent small molecule RGS inhibitor to date. It has an IC(50) for RGS4 of 30 nM and is >20-fold selective for RGS4 over other RGS proteins. CCG-50014 binds covalently to the RGS, forming an adduct on two cysteine residues located in an allosteric regulatory site. It is not a general cysteine alkylator as it does not inhibit activity of the cysteine protease papain at concentrations >3000-fold higher than those required to inhibit RGS4 function. It is also >1000-fold more potent as an RGS4 inhibitor than are the cysteine alkylators N-ethylmaleimide and iodoacetamide. Analysis of the cysteine reactivity of the compound shows that compound binding to Cys(107) in RGS8 inhibits Gα binding in a manner that can be reversed by cleavage of the compound-RGS disulfide bond. If the compound reacts with Cys(160) in RGS8, the adduct induces RGS denaturation, and activity cannot be restored by removal of the compound. The high potency and good selectivity of CCG-50014 make it a useful tool for studying the functional roles of RGS4.     

G protein-coupled receptors and resistance to inhibitors of cholinesterase-8A (Ric-8A) both regulate the regulator of g protein signaling 14 RGS14·Gαi1 complex in live cells

Regulator of G protein Signaling 14 (RGS14) is a multifunctional scaffolding protein that integrates both conventional and unconventional G protein signaling pathways. Like other RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins, RGS14 acts as a GTPase accelerating protein to terminate conventional Gα(i/o) signaling. However, unlike other RGS proteins, RGS14 also contains a G protein regulatory/GoLoco motif that specifically binds Gα(i1/3)-GDP in cells and in vitro. The non-receptor guanine nucleotide exchange factor Ric-8A can bind and act on the RGS14·Gα(i1)-GDP complex to play a role in unconventional G protein signaling independent of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Here we demonstrate that RGS14 forms a Gα(i/o)-dependent complex with a G(i)-linked GPCR and that this complex is regulated by receptor agonist and Ric-8A (resistance to inhibitors of cholinesterase-8A). Using live cell bioluminescence resonance energy transfer, we show that RGS14 functionally associates with the α(2A)-adrenergic receptor (α(2A)-AR) in a Gα(i/o)-dependent manner. This interaction is markedly disrupted after receptor stimulation by the specific agonist UK14304, suggesting complex dissociation or rearrangement. Agonist-mediated dissociation of the RGS14·α(2A)-AR complex occurs in the presence of Gα(i/o) but not Gα(s) or Gα(q). Unexpectedly, RGS14 does not dissociate from Gα(i1) in the presence of stimulated α(2A)-AR, suggesting preservation of RGS14·Gα(i1) complexes after receptor activation. However, Ric-8A facilitates dissociation of both the RGS14·Gα(i1) complex and the Gα(i1)-dependent RGS14·α(2A)-AR complex after receptor activation. Together, these findings indicate that RGS14 can form complexes with GPCRs in cells that are dependent on Gα(i/o) and that these RGS14·Gα(i1)·GPCR complexes may be substrates for other signaling partners such as Ric-8A.