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.     

Solution structure of human GAIP (Galpha interacting protein): a regulator of G protein signaling.

The solution structure of the human protein GAIP (Galpha interacting protein), a regulator of G protein signaling, has been determined by NMR techniques. Dipolar couplings of the oriented protein in two different liquid crystal media have been used in the structure calculation. The solution structure of GAIP is compared to the crystal structure of an homologous protein from rat (RGS4) complexed to the alpha-subunit of a G protein. Some of RGS4 residues involved in the Galpha-RGS binding interface have similar orientations in GAIP (free form), indicating that upon binding these residues do not suffer conformational rearrangements, and therefore, their role does not seem to be restricted to Galpha interaction but also to RGS folding and stability. We suggest that other structural differences between the two proteins may be related to the process of binding as well as to a distinct efficiency in their respective GTPase activating function.     

Mapping the Galpha13 binding interface of the rgRGS domain of p115RhoGEF

Structural requirements for function of the Rho GEF (guanine nucleotide exchange factor) regulator of G protein signaling (rgRGS) domains of p115RhoGEF and homologous exchange factors differ from those of the classical RGS domains. An extensive mutagenesis analysis of the p115RhoGEF rgRGS domain was undertaken to determine its functional interface with the Galpha(13) subunit. Results indicate that there is global resemblance between the interaction surface of the rgRGS domain with Galpha(13) and the interactions of RGS4 and RGS9 with their Galpha substrates. However, there are distinct differences in the distribution of functionally critical residues between these structurally similar surfaces and an additional essential requirement for a cluster of negatively charged residues at the N terminus of rgRGS. Lack of sequence conservation within the N terminus may also explain the lack of GTPase-activating protein (GAP) activity in a subset of the rgRGS domains. For all mutations, loss of functional GAP activity is paralleled by decreases in binding to Galpha(13). The same mutations, when placed in the context of the p115RhoGEF molecule, produce deficiencies in GAP activity as observed with the rgRGS domain alone but show no attenuation of the regulation of Rho exchange activity by Galpha(13). This suggests that the rgRGS domain may serve a structural or allosteric role in the regulation of the nucleotide exchange activity of p115RhoGEF on Rho by Galpha(13).     

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.     

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.     

The structure of G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK)-6 defines a second lineage of GRKs

We describe the 2.6-A crystal structure of human G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK)-6, a key regulator of dopaminergic signaling and lymphocyte chemotaxis. GRK6 is a member of the GRK4 subfamily of GRKs, which is represented in most, if not all, metazoans. Comparison of GRK6 with GRK2 confirms that the catalytic core of all GRKs consists of intimately associated kinase and regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) homology domains. Despite being in complex with an ATP analog, the kinase domain of GRK6 remains in an open, presumably inactive conformation, suggesting that G protein-coupled receptors activate GRKs by inducing kinase domain closure. The structure reveals a putative phospholipid-binding site near the N terminus of GRK6 and structural elements within the kinase substrate channel that likely influence G protein-coupled receptor access and specificity. The crystalline GRK6 RGS homology domain forms an extensive dimer interface using conserved hydrophobic residues distinct from those in GRK2 that bind Galpha(q), although dimerization does not appear to occur in solution and is not required for receptor phosphorylation.     

Structural clusters of evolutionary trace residues are statistically significant and common in proteins

Given the massive increase in the number of new sequences and structures, a critical problem is how to integrate these raw data into meaningful biological information. One approach, the Evolutionary Trace, or ET, uses phylogenetic information to rank the residues in a protein sequence by evolutionary importance and then maps those ranked at the top onto a representative structure. If these residues form structural clusters, they can identify functional surfaces such as those involved in molecular recognition. Now that a number of examples have shown that ET can identify binding sites and focus mutational studies on their relevant functional determinants, we ask whether the method can be improved so as to be applicable on a large scale. To address this question, we introduce a new treatment of gaps resulting from insertions and deletions, which streamlines the selection of sequences used as input. We also introduce objective statistics to assess the significance of the total number of clusters and of the size of the largest one. As a result of the novel treatment of gaps, ET performance improves measurably. We find evolutionarily privileged clusters that are significant at the 5% level in 45 out of 46 (98%) proteins drawn from a variety of structural classes and biological functions. In 37 of the 38 proteins for which a protein-ligand complex is available, the dominant cluster contacts the ligand. We conclude that spatial clustering of evolutionarily important residues is a general phenomenon, consistent with the cooperative nature of residues that determine structure and function. In practice, these results suggest that ET can be applied on a large scale to identify functional sites in a significant fraction of the structures in the protein databank (PDB). This approach to combining raw sequences and structure to obtain detailed insights into the molecular basis of function should prove valuable in the context of the Structural Genomics Initiative.     

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.     

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.     

Translational control by RGS2

The regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are a family of guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase)–accelerating proteins. We have discovered a novel function for RGS2 in the control of protein synthesis. RGS2 was found to bind to eIF2Bϵ (eukaryotic initiation factor 2B ϵ subunit) and inhibit the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into new protein. This effect was not observed for other RGS proteins tested. This novel function of RGS2 is distinct from its ability to regulate G protein–mediated signals and maps to a stretch of 37 amino acid residues within its conserved RGS domain. Moreover, RGS2 was capable of interfering with the eIF2–eIF2B GTPase cycle, which is a requisite step for the initiation of mRNA translation. Collectively, this study has identified a novel role for RGS2 in the control of protein synthesis that is independent of its established RGS domain function.     

Structural basis for the 14-3-3 protein-dependent inhibition of the regulator of G protein signaling 3 (RGS3) function

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins function as GTPase-activating proteins for the α-subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins. The function of certain RGS proteins is negatively regulated by 14-3-3 proteins, a family of highly conserved regulatory molecules expressed in all eukaryotes. In this study, we provide a structural mechanism for 14-3-3-dependent inhibition of RGS3-Gα interaction. We have used small angle x-ray scattering, hydrogen/deuterium exchange kinetics, and Förster resonance energy transfer measurements to determine the low-resolution solution structure of the 14-3-3ζ·RGS3 complex. The structure shows the RGS domain of RGS3 bound to the 14-3-3ζ dimer in an as-yet-unrecognized manner interacting with less conserved regions on the outer surface of the 14-3-3 dimer outside its central channel. Our results suggest that the 14-3-3 protein binding affects the structure of the Gα interaction portion of RGS3 as well as sterically blocks the interaction between the RGS domain and the Gα subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins.     

Structural basis for mobility in the 1.1 A crystal structure of the NG domain of Thermus aquaticus Ffh

The NG domain of the prokaryotic signal recognition protein Ffh is a two-domain GTPase that comprises part of the prokaryotic signal recognition particle (SRP) that functions in co-translational targeting of proteins to the membrane. The interface between the N and G domains includes two highly conserved sequence motifs and is adjacent in sequence and structure to one of the conserved GTPase signature motifs. Previous structural studies have shown that the relative orientation of the two domains is dynamic. The N domain of Ffh has been proposed to function in regulating the nucleotide-binding interactions of the G domain. However, biochemical studies suggest a more complex role for the domain in integrating communication between signal sequence recognition and interaction with receptor. Here, we report the structure of the apo NG GTPase of Ffh from Thermus aquaticus refined at 1.10 A resolution. Although the G domain is very well ordered in this structure, the N domain is less well ordered, reflecting the dynamic relationship between the two domains previously inferred. We demonstrate that the anisotropic displacement parameters directly visualize the underlying mobility between the two domains, and present a detailed structural analysis of the packing of the residues, including the critical alpha4 helix, that comprise the interface. Our data allows us to propose a structural explanation for the functional significance of sequence elements conserved at the N/G interface.     

Structure of the p115RhoGEF rgRGS domain-Galpha13/i1 chimera complex suggests convergent evolution of a GTPase activator

p115RhoGEF, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for Rho GTPase, is also a GTPase-activating protein (GAP) for G12 and G13 heterotrimeric Galpha subunits. The GAP function of p115RhoGEF resides within the N-terminal region of p115RhoGEF (the rgRGS domain), which includes a module that is structurally similar to RGS (regulators of G-protein signaling) domains. We present here the crystal structure of the rgRGS domain of p115RhoGEF in complex with a chimera of Galpha13 and Galphai1. Two distinct surfaces of rgRGS interact with Galpha. The N-terminal betaN-alphaN hairpin of rgRGS, rather than its RGS module, forms intimate contacts with the catalytic site of Galpha. The interface between the RGS module of rgRGS and Galpha is similar to that of a Galpha-effector complex, suggesting a role for the rgRGS domain in the stimulation of the GEF activity of p115RhoGEF by Galpha13.     

RGS6 and RGS7 Discriminate between the Highly Similar Gαi and Gαo Proteins Using a Two-Tiered Specificity Strategy

RGS6 and RGS7 are regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins that inactivate heterotrimeric (αβγ) G proteins and mediate diverse biological functions, such as cardiac and neuronal signaling. Uniquely, both RGS6 and RGS7 can discriminate between Gα_o and Gα_i1—two similar Gα subunits that belong to the same G_i sub-family. Here, we show that the isolated RGS domains of RGS6 and RGS7 are sufficient to achieve this specificity. We identified three specific RGS6/7 “disruptor residues” that can attenuate RGS interactions toward Gα subunits and demonstrated that their insertion into a representative high-activity RGS causes a significant, yet non-specific, reduction in activity. We further identified a unique “modulatory” residue that bypasses this negative effect, specifically toward Gα_o. Hence, the exquisite specificity of RGS6 and RGS7 toward closely related Gα subunits is achieved via a two-tier specificity system, whereby a Gα-specific modulatory motif overrides the inhibitory effect of non-specific disruptor residues. Our findings expand the understanding of the molecular toolkit used by the RGS family to achieve specific interactions with selected Gα subunits—emphasizing the functional importance of the RGS domain in determining the activity and selectivity of RGS R7 sub-family members toward particular Gα subunits.     

Evolutionary trace of G protein-coupled receptors reveals clusters of residues that determine global and class-specific functions

G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) activation mediated by ligand-induced structural reorganization of its helices is poorly understood. To determine the universal elements of this conformational switch, we used evolutionary tracing (ET) to identify residue positions commonly important in diverse GPCRs. When mapped onto the rhodopsin structure, these trace residues cluster into a network of contacts from the retinal binding site to the G protein-coupling loops. Their roles in a generic transduction mechanism were verified by 211 of 239 published mutations that caused functional defects. When grouped according to the nature of the defects, these residues sub-divided into three striking sub-clusters: a trigger region, where mutations mostly affect ligand binding, a coupling region near the cytoplasmic interface to the G protein, where mutations affect G protein activation, and a linking core in between where mutations cause constitutive activity and other defects. Differential ET analysis of the opsin family revealed an additional set of opsin-specific residues, several of which form part of the retinal binding pocket, and are known to cause functional defects upon mutation. To test the predictive power of ET, we introduced novel mutations in bovine rhodopsin at a globally important position, Leu-79, and at an opsin-specific position, Trp-175. Both were functionally critical, causing constitutive G protein activation of the mutants and rapid loss of regeneration after photobleaching. These results define in GPCRs a canonical signal transduction mechanism where ligand binding induces conformational changes propagated through adjacent trigger, linking core, and coupling regions.     

Sequence-structure-function relationships of Tgs1, the yeast snRNA/snoRNA cap hypermethylase

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae Tgs1 methyltransferase (MTase) is responsible for conversion of the m⁷G caps of snRNAs and snoRNAs to a 2,2,7- trimethylguanosine structure. To learn more about the evolutionary origin of Tgs1 and to identify structural features required for its activity, we performed a structure–function study. By using sequence comparison and phylogenetic analysis, we found that Tgs1 shows strongest similarity to Mj0882, a protein related to a family comprised of bacterial rRNA:m²G MTases RsmC and RsmD. The structural information of Mj0882 was used to build a homology model of Tgs1p which allowed us to predict the range of the minimal globular MTase domain and the localization of other residues that may be important for enzyme function. To further characterize functional domains of Tgs1, mutants were constructed and tested for their effects on cell viability, subcellular localization and binding to the small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (snRNPs) and small nucleolar RNPs (snoRNPs). We found that the N-terminal domain of the hypermethylase is dispensable for binding to the common snRNPs and snoRNPs proteins but essential for correct nucleolar localization. Site- directed mutagenesis of Tgs1 allowed also the identification of the residues likely to be involved in the formation of the m7G-binding site and the catalytic center.     

Genomic organization, characterization, and molecular 3D model of GDE1, a novel mammalian glycerophosphoinositol phosphodiesterase

Glycerophosphodiester phosphodiesterase (GDPD) catalyzes the hydrolysis of deacylated glycerophospholipids to glycerol phosphate and alcohol. A mammalian glycerophosphoinositol phosphodiesterase, GDE1/MIR16, was recently identified as an interacting protein of the regulator of G protein signaling 16 (RGS16) providing a link between phosphoinositide metabolism and G protein signal transduction. To further understand the function and properties of human GDE1, we determined its genomic organization and its biochemical and structural characteristics. GDE1 encodes a 331-residue protein with two hydrophobic domains and contains a GDE domain that shares strong homologies with GDE1-related proteins as well as bacterial GDPDs. The human GDE1 gene is located on chromosome 16p12-p11.2 and contains six exons and five introns. A molecular 3D model, which was built based on the crystal structure of Escherichia coli GDPD (1YDY), provides the first structural information of human GDE1 and suggests a TIM barrel core as typically found in bacterial GDPDs. Furthermore, a model of the putative catalytic motif within the GDE domain was nearly identical to the corresponding domain of GDPD and highlights the individual core residues Glu97, Asp99, and His112, which are crucial to maintaining GDE1 catalytic activity. These studies provide important new insights into understanding the function of GDE1 and GDE1-related proteins.