Phosphorylation-Dependent Regulation of G-Protein Cycle during Nodule Formation in Soybean

Signaling pathways mediated by heterotrimeric G-protein complexes comprising Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits and their regulatory RGS (Regulator of G-protein Signaling) protein are conserved in all eukaryotes. We have shown that the specific Gβ and Gγ proteins of a soybean (Glycine max) heterotrimeric G-protein complex are involved in regulation of nodulation. We now demonstrate the role of Nod factor receptor 1 (NFR1)-mediated phosphorylation in regulation of the G-protein cycle during nodulation in soybean. We also show that during nodulation, the G-protein cycle is regulated by the activity of RGS proteins. Lower or higher expression of RGS proteins results in fewer or more nodules, respectively. NFR1 interacts with RGS proteins and phosphorylates them. Analysis of phosphorylated RGS protein identifies specific amino acids that, when phosphorylated, result in significantly higher GTPase accelerating activity. These data point to phosphorylation-based regulation of G-protein signaling during nodule development. We propose that active NFR1 receptors phosphorylate and activate RGS proteins, which help maintain the Gα proteins in their inactive, trimeric conformation, resulting in successful nodule development. Alternatively, RGS proteins might also have a direct role in regulating nodulation because overexpression of their phospho-mimic version leads to partial restoration of nodule formation in nod49 mutants.     

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.     

A High Throughput Screen for RGS Proteins Using Steady State Monitoring of Free Phosphate Formation

G-protein coupled receptors are a diverse group that are the target of over 50% of marketed drugs. Activation of these receptors results in the exchange of bound GDP for GTP in the Gα subunit of the heterotrimeric G-protein. The Gα subunit dissociates from the β/γ subunits and both proceed to affect downstream signaling targets. The signal terminates by the hydrolysis of GTP to GDP and is temporally regulated by Regulators of G-protein Signaling (RGS) proteins that act as GTPase Activating Proteins (GAPs). This makes RGS proteins potentially desirable targets for “tuning” the effects of current therapies as well as developing novel pharmacotherapies. Current methods for evaluating RGS activity depend on laborious and/or expensive techniques. In this study we developed a simple and inexpensive assay for the steady state analysis of RGS protein GAP activity, using RGS4, RGS8 and RGS17 as models. Additionally, we report the use of RGS4 as a model for high throughput assay development. After initial setup, this assay can be conducted in a highly parallel fashion with a read time of less than 8 minutes for a 1536-well plate. The assay exhibited a robust Z-factor of 0.6 in a 1536-well plate. We conducted a pilot screen for inhibitors using a small, 2320 compound library. From this screen, 13 compounds were identified as compounds for further analysis. The successful development of this assay for high-throughput screening provides a low cost, high speed, simple method for assessing RGS protein activity.     

Regulator of G Protein Signaling 2 (RGS2) and RGS4 Form Distinct G Protein-Dependent Complexes with Protease Activated-Receptor 1 (PAR1) in Live Cells

Protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1) is a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) that is activated by natural proteases to regulate many physiological actions. We previously reported that PAR1 couples to G_i, G_q and G₁₂ to activate linked signaling pathways. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins serve as GTPase activating proteins to inhibit GPCR/G protein signaling. Some RGS proteins interact directly with certain GPCRs to modulate their signals, though cellular mechanisms dictating selective RGS/GPCR coupling are poorly understood. Here, using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET), we tested whether RGS2 and RGS4 bind to PAR1 in live COS-7 cells to regulate PAR1/Gα-mediated signaling. We report that PAR1 selectively interacts with either RGS2 or RGS4 in a G protein-dependent manner. Very little BRET activity is observed between PAR1-Venus (PAR1-Ven) and either RGS2-Luciferase (RGS2-Luc) or RGS4-Luc in the absence of Gα. However, in the presence of specific Gα subunits, BRET activity was markedly enhanced between PAR1-RGS2 by Gα_q/11, and PAR1-RGS4 by Gα_o, but not by other Gα subunits. Gα_q/11-YFP/RGS2-Luc BRET activity is promoted by PAR1 and is markedly enhanced by agonist (TFLLR) stimulation. However, PAR1-Ven/RGS-Luc BRET activity was blocked by a PAR1 mutant (R205A) that eliminates PAR1-G_q/11 coupling. The purified intracellular third loop of PAR1 binds directly to purified His-RGS2 or His-RGS4. In cells, RGS2 and RGS4 inhibited PAR1/Gα-mediated calcium and MAPK/ERK signaling, respectively, but not RhoA signaling. Our findings indicate that RGS2 and RGS4 interact directly with PAR1 in Gα-dependent manner to modulate PAR1/Gα-mediated signaling, and highlight a cellular mechanism for selective GPCR/G protein/RGS coupling.     

A sweet cycle for Arabidopsis G-proteins: Recent discoveries and controversies in plant G-protein signal transduction

Heterotrimeric G-proteins are a class of signal transduction proteins highly conserved throughout evolution that serve as dynamic molecular switches regulating the intracellular communication initiated by extracellular signals including sensory information. This property is achieved by a guanine nucleotide cycle wherein the inactive, signaling-incompetent Gα subunit is normally bound to GDP; activation to signaling-competent Gα occurs through the exchange of GDP for GTP (typically catalyzed via seven-transmembrane domain G-protein coupled receptors [GPCRs]), which dissociates the Gβγ dimer from Gα-GTP and initiates signal transduction. The hydrolysis of GTP, greatly accelerated by “Regulator of G-protein Signaling” (RGS) proteins, returns Gα to its inactive GDP-bound form and terminates signaling. Through extensive characterization of mammalian Gα isoforms, the rate-limiting step in this cycle is currently considered to be the GDP/GTP exchange rate, which can be orders of magnitude slower than the GTP hydrolysis rate. However, we have recently demonstrated that, in Arabidopsis, the guanine nucleotide cycle appears to be limited by the rate of GTP hydrolysis rather than nucleotide exchange. This finding has important implications for the mechanism of sugar sensing in Arabidopsis. We also discuss these data on Arabidopsis G-protein nucleotide cycling in relation to recent reports of putative plant GPCRs and heterotrimeric G-protein effectors in Arabidopsis.Key words: Arabidopsis, glucose, G-protein, nucleotide exchange, RGS protein     

Regulator of G-Protein Signaling – 5 (RGS5) Is a Novel Repressor of Hedgehog Signaling

Hedgehog (Hh) signaling plays fundamental roles in morphogenesis, tissue repair, and human disease. Initiation of Hh signaling is controlled by the interaction of two multipass membrane proteins, patched (Ptc) and smoothened (Smo). Recent studies identify Smo as a G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR)-like protein that signals through large G-protein complexes which contain the Gα_i subunit. We hypothesize Regulator of G-Protein Signaling (RGS) proteins, and specifically RGS5, are endogenous repressors of Hh signaling via their ability to act as GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) for GTP-bound Gα_i, downstream of Smo. In support of this hypothesis, we demonstrate that RGS5 over-expression inhibits sonic hedgehog (Shh)-mediated signaling and osteogenesis in C3H10T1/2 cells. Conversely, signaling is potentiated by siRNA-mediated knock-down of RGS5 expression, but not RGS4 expression. Furthermore, using immuohistochemical analysis and co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP), we demonstrate that RGS5 is present with Smo in primary cilia. This organelle is required for canonical Hh signaling in mammalian cells, and RGS5 is found in a physical complex with Smo in these cells. We therefore conclude that RGS5 is an endogenous regulator of Hh-mediated signaling and that RGS proteins are potential targets for novel therapeutics in Hh-mediated diseases.     

Regulator of G protein signaling 2 inhibits Gαq-dependent uveal melanoma cell growth

Activating mutations in Gα_q/11 are a major driver of uveal melanoma (UM), the most common intraocular cancer in adults. While progress has recently been made in targeting Gα_q/11 for UM therapy, the crucial role for these proteins in normal physiology and their high structural similarity with many other important GTPase proteins renders this approach challenging. The aim of the current study was to validate whether a key regulator of Gq signaling, regulator of G protein signaling 2 (RGS2), can inhibit Gα_q-mediated UM cell growth. We used two UM cell lines, 92.1 and Mel-202, which both contain the most common activating mutation Gα_q^Q209L and developed stable cell lines with doxycycline-inducible RGS2 protein expression. Using cell viability assays, we showed that RGS2 could inhibit cell growth in both of these UM cell lines. We also found that this effect was independent of the canonical GTPase-activating protein activity of RGS2 but was dependent on the association between RGS2 and Gα_q. Furthermore, RGS2 induction resulted in only partial reduction in cell growth as compared to siRNA-mediated Gαq knockdown, perhaps because RGS2 was only able to reduce mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling downstream of phospholipase Cβ, while leaving activation of the Hippo signaling mediators yes-associated protein 1/TAZ, the other major pathway downstream of Gα_q, unaffected. Taken together, our data indicate that RGS2 can inhibit UM cancer cell growth by associating with Gα_q^Q209L as a partial effector antagonist.     

RGS-GAIP, a GTPase-activating Protein for Gαi Heterotrimeric G Proteins, Is Located on Clathrin-coated Vesicles

RGS-GAIP (Gα-interacting protein) is a member of the RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) family of proteins that functions to down-regulate Gα_i/Gα_q-linked signaling. GAIP is a GAP or guanosine triphosphatase-activating protein that was initially discovered by virtue of its ability to bind to the heterotrimeric G protein Gα_i3, which is found on both the plasma membrane (PM) and Golgi membranes. Previously, we demonstrated that, in contrast to most other GAPs, GAIP is membrane anchored and palmitoylated. In this work we used cell fractionation and immunocytochemistry to determine with what particular membranes GAIP is associated. In pituitary cells we found that GAIP fractionated with intracellular membranes, not the PM; by immunogold labeling GAIP was found on clathrin-coated buds or vesicles (CCVs) in the Golgi region. In rat liver GAIP was concentrated in vesicular carrier fractions; it was not found in either Golgi- or PM-enriched fractions. By immunogold labeling it was detected on clathrin-coated pits or CCVs located near the sinusoidal PM. These results suggest that GAIP may be associated with both TGN-derived and PM-derived CCVs. GAIP represents the first GAP found on CCVs or any other intracellular membranes. The presence of GAIP on CCVs suggests a model whereby a GAP is separated in space from its target G protein with the two coming into contact at the time of vesicle fusion.     

Self-activating G protein α subunits engage seven-transmembrane regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins and a Rho guanine nucleotide exchange factor effector in the amoeba Naegleria fowleri

The free-living amoeba Naegleria fowleri is a causative agent of primary amoebic meningoencephalitis and is highly resistant to current therapies, resulting in mortality rates >97%. As many therapeutics target G protein–centered signal transduction pathways, further understanding the functional significance of G protein signaling within N. fowleri should aid future drug discovery against this pathogen. Here, we report that the N. fowleri genome encodes numerous transcribed G protein signaling components, including G protein–coupled receptors, heterotrimeric G protein subunits, regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins, and candidate Gα effector proteins. We found N. fowleri Gα subunits have diverse nucleotide cycling kinetics; Nf Gα5 and Gα7 exhibit more rapid nucleotide exchange than GTP hydrolysis (i.e., “self-activating” behavior). A crystal structure of Nf Gα7 highlights the stability of its nucleotide-free state, consistent with its rapid nucleotide exchange. Variations in the phosphate binding loop also contribute to nucleotide cycling differences among Gα subunits. Similar to plant G protein signaling pathways, N. fowleri Gα subunits selectively engage members of a large seven-transmembrane RGS protein family, resulting in acceleration of GTP hydrolysis. We show Nf Gα2 and Gα3 directly interact with a candidate Gα effector protein, RGS-RhoGEF, similar to mammalian Gα_12/13 signaling pathways. We demonstrate Nf Gα2 and Gα3 each engage RGS-RhoGEF through a canonical Gα/RGS domain interface, suggesting a shared evolutionary origin with G protein signaling in the enteric pathogen Entamoeba histolytica. These findings further illuminate the evolution of G protein signaling and identify potential targets of pharmacological manipulation in N. fowleri.     

Integration of G Protein α (Gα) Signaling by the Regulator of G Protein Signaling 14 (RGS14)

RGS14 contains distinct binding sites for both active (GTP-bound) and inactive (GDP-bound) forms of Gα subunits. The N-terminal regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) domain binds active Gα_i/o-GTP, whereas the C-terminal G protein regulatory (GPR) motif binds inactive Gα_i1/3-GDP. The molecular basis for how RGS14 binds different activation states of Gα proteins to integrate G protein signaling is unknown. Here we explored the intramolecular communication between the GPR motif and the RGS domain upon G protein binding and examined whether RGS14 can functionally interact with two distinct forms of Gα subunits simultaneously. Using complementary cellular and biochemical approaches, we demonstrate that RGS14 forms a stable complex with inactive Gα_i1-GDP at the plasma membrane and that free cytosolic RGS14 is recruited to the plasma membrane by activated Gα_o-AlF₄⁻. Bioluminescence resonance energy transfer studies showed that RGS14 adopts different conformations in live cells when bound to Gα in different activation states. Hydrogen/deuterium exchange mass spectrometry revealed that RGS14 is a very dynamic protein that undergoes allosteric conformational changes when inactive Gα_i1-GDP binds the GPR motif. Pure RGS14 forms a ternary complex with Gα_o-AlF₄⁻ and an AlF₄⁻-insensitive mutant (G42R) of Gα_i1-GDP, as observed by size exclusion chromatography and differential hydrogen/deuterium exchange. Finally, a preformed RGS14·Gα_i1-GDP complex exhibits full capacity to stimulate the GTPase activity of Gα_o-GTP, demonstrating that RGS14 can functionally engage two distinct forms of Gα subunits simultaneously. Based on these findings, we propose a working model for how RGS14 integrates multiple G protein signals in host CA2 hippocampal neurons to modulate synaptic plasticity.     

Normal Autophagic Activity in Macrophages from Mice Lacking Gαi3, AGS3, or RGS19

In macrophages autophagy assists antigen presentation, affects cytokine release, and promotes intracellular pathogen elimination. In some cells autophagy is modulated by a signaling pathway that employs Gα_i3, Activator of G-protein Signaling-3 (AGS3/GPSM1), and Regulator of G-protein Signaling 19 (RGS19). As macrophages express each of these proteins, we tested their importance in regulating macrophage autophagy. We assessed LC3 processing and the formation of LC3 puncta in bone marrow derived macrophages prepared from wild type, Gnai3^-/-, Gpsm1^-/-, or Rgs19^-/- mice following amino acid starvation or Nigericin treatment. In addition, we evaluated rapamycin-induced autophagic proteolysis rates by long-lived protein degradation assays and anti-autophagic action after rapamycin induction in wild type, Gnai3^-/-, and Gpsm1^-/- macrophages. In similar assays we compared macrophages treated or not with pertussis toxin, an inhibitor of GPCR (G-protein couple receptor) triggered Gα_i nucleotide exchange. Despite previous findings, the level of basal autophagy, autophagic induction, autophagic flux, autophagic degradation and the anti-autophagic action in macrophages that lacked Gα_i3, AGS3, or RGS19; or had been treated with pertussis toxin, were similar to controls. These results indicate that while Gα_i signaling may impact autophagy in some cell types it does not in macrophages.     

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.     

Assembly and Function of the Regulator of G protein Signaling 14 (RGS14)·H-Ras Signaling Complex in Live Cells Are Regulated by Gαi1 and Gαi-linked G Protein-coupled Receptors

Regulator of G protein signaling 14 (RGS14) is a multifunctional scaffolding protein that integrates heterotrimeric G protein and H-Ras signaling pathways. RGS14 possesses an RGS domain that binds active Gα_i/o-GTP subunits to promote GTP hydrolysis and a G protein regulatory (GPR) motif that selectively binds inactive Gα_i1/3-GDP subunits to form a stable heterodimer at cellular membranes. RGS14 also contains two tandem Ras/Rap binding domains (RBDs) that bind H-Ras. Here we show that RGS14 preferentially binds activated H-Ras-GTP in live cells to enhance H-Ras cellular actions and that this interaction is regulated by inactive Gα_i1-GDP and G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Using bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) in live cells, we show that RGS14-Luciferase and active H-Ras(G/V)-Venus exhibit a robust BRET signal at the plasma membrane that is markedly enhanced in the presence of inactive Gα_i1-GDP but not active Gα_i1-GTP. Active H-Ras(G/V) interacts with a native RGS14·Gα_i1 complex in brain lysates, and co-expression of RGS14 and Gα_i1 in PC12 cells greatly enhances H-Ras(G/V) stimulatory effects on neurite outgrowth. Stimulation of the Gα_i-linked α_2A-adrenergic receptor induces a conformational change in the Gα_i1·RGS14·H-Ras(G/V) complex that may allow subsequent regulation of the complex by other binding partners. Together, these findings indicate that inactive Gα_i1-GDP enhances the affinity of RGS14 for H-Ras-GTP in live cells, resulting in a ternary signaling complex that is further regulated by GPCRs.     

Regulators of G Protein Signaling Attenuate the G Protein–mediated Inhibition of N-Type Ca Channels

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins bind to the α subunits of certain heterotrimeric G proteins and greatly enhance their rate of GTP hydrolysis, thereby determining the time course of interactions among Gα, Gβγ, and their effectors. Voltage-gated N-type Ca channels mediate neurosecretion, and these Ca channels are powerfully inhibited by G proteins. To determine whether RGS proteins could influence Ca channel function, we recorded the activity of N-type Ca channels coexpressed in human embryonic kidney (HEK293) cells with G protein–coupled muscarinic (m2) receptors and various RGS proteins. Coexpression of full-length RGS3T, RGS3, or RGS8 significantly attenuated the magnitude of receptor-mediated Ca channel inhibition. In control cells expressing α1B, α2, and β3 Ca channel subunits and m2 receptors, carbachol (1 μM) inhibited whole-cell currents by ∼80% compared with only ∼55% inhibition in cells also expressing exogenous RGS protein. A similar effect was produced by expression of the conserved core domain of RGS8. The attenuation of Ca current inhibition resulted primarily from a shift in the steady state dose–response relationship to higher agonist concentrations, with the EC₅₀ for carbachol inhibition being ∼18 nM in control cells vs. ∼150 nM in RGS-expressing cells. The kinetics of Ca channel inhibition were also modified by RGS. Thus, in cells expressing RGS3T, the decay of prepulse facilitation was slower, and recovery of Ca channels from inhibition after agonist removal was faster than in control cells. The effects of RGS proteins on Ca channel modulation can be explained by their ability to act as GTPase-accelerating proteins for some Gα subunits. These results suggest that RGS proteins may play important roles in shaping the magnitude and kinetics of physiological events, such as neurosecretion, that involve G protein–modulated Ca channels.     

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.     

Regulator of G-Protein Signaling 3 Isoform 1 (PDZ-RGS3) Enhances Canonical Wnt Signaling and Promotes Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition

The Wnt β-catenin pathway controls numerous cellular processes including cell differentiation and cell-fate decisions. Wnt ligands engage Frizzled receptors and the low-density-lipoprotein-related protein 5/6 (LRP5/6) receptor complex leading to the recruitment of Dishevelled (Dvl) and Axin1 to the plasma membrane. Axin1 has a regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS) domain that binds adenomatous polyposis coli and Gα subunits, thereby providing a mechanism by which Gα subunits can affect β-catenin levels. Here we show that Wnt signaling enhances the expression of another RGS domain-containing protein, PDZ-RGS3. Reducing PDZ-RGS3 levels impaired Wnt3a-induced activation of the canonical pathway. PDZ-RGS3 bound GSK3β and decreased its catalytic activity toward β-catenin. PDZ-RGS3 overexpression enhanced Snail1 and led to morphological and biochemical changes reminiscent of epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT). These results indicate that PDZ-RGS3 can enhance signals generated by the Wnt canonical pathway and that plays a pivotal role in EMT.     

Sporophyte Formation and Life Cycle Completion in Moss Requires Heterotrimeric G-Proteins

In this study, we report the functional characterization of heterotrimeric G-proteins from a nonvascular plant, the moss Physcomitrella patens. In plants, G-proteins have been characterized from only a few angiosperms to date, where their involvement has been shown during regulation of multiple signaling and developmental pathways affecting overall plant fitness. In addition to its unparalleled evolutionary position in the plant lineages, the P. patens genome also codes for a unique assortment of G-protein components, which includes two copies of Gβ and Gγ genes, but no canonical Gα. Instead, a single gene encoding an extra-large Gα (XLG) protein exists in the P. patens genome. Here, we demonstrate that in P. patens the canonical Gα is biochemically and functionally replaced by an XLG protein, which works in the same genetic pathway as one of the Gβ proteins to control its development. Furthermore, the specific G-protein subunits in P. patens are essential for its life cycle completion. Deletion of the genomic locus of PpXLG or PpGβ2 results in smaller, slower growing gametophores. Normal reproductive structures develop on these gametophores, but they are unable to form any sporophyte, the only diploid stage in the moss life cycle. Finally, the mutant phenotypes of ΔPpXLG and ΔPpGβ2 can be complemented by the homologous genes from Arabidopsis, AtXLG2 and AtAGB1, respectively, suggesting an overall conservation of their function throughout the plant evolution.In all known eukaryotes, cellular signaling involves heterotrimeric GTP-binding proteins (G-proteins), which consist of Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits (Cabrera-Vera et al., 2003). According to the established paradigm, when Gα is GDP-bound, it forms a trimeric complex with the Gβγ dimer and remains associated with a G-protein coupled receptor. Signal perception by the receptor facilitates GDP to GTP exchange on Gα. GTP-Gα dissociates from the Gβγ dimer, and both these entities can transduce the signal by interacting with different effectors. The duration of the active state is determined by the intrinsic GTPase activity of Gα, which hydrolyzes bound GTP into GDP and inorganic phosphate (Pi), followed by the reassociation of the inactive, trimeric complex (Siderovski and Willard, 2005).In plants, G-protein signaling has been studied in only a few angiosperms to date at the functional level, although the proteins exist in the entire plant lineage (Hackenberg and Pandey, 2014; Urano and Jones, 2014; Hackenberg et al., 2016). Interestingly, while the overall biochemistry of the individual G-protein components and the interactions between them are conserved between plant and metazoan systems, deviations from the established norm are also obvious. For example, the repertoire of canonical G-proteins is significantly limited in plants; the human genome codes for 23 Gα, 5 Gβ, and 12 Gγ proteins, whereas most plant genomes, including those of basal plants, typically encode 1 canonical Gα, 1 Gβ, and three to five Gγ proteins (Urano and Jones, 2014). The only exceptions are some polyploid species, such as soybean, which have retained most of the duplicated G-protein genes (Bisht et al., 2011; Choudhury et al., 2011). Moreover, even in plants that possess only a single canonical Gα and Gβ protein, for example Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) and rice, the phenotypes of plants lacking either one or both proteins are relatively subtle. The mutant plants exhibit multiple developmental and signaling defects but are able to complete the life cycle without any major consequences. These observations have questioned the significance of G-protein mediated signaling pathways in plants.Interestingly, plants also possess certain unique variants of the classical G-protein components such as the type III Cys-rich Gγ proteins and extra-large GTP-binding (XLG) proteins, which add to the diversity and expanse of the G-protein signaling networks (Roy Choudhury et al., 2011; Chakravorty et al., 2015; Maruta et al., 2015). The XLG proteins are almost twice the size of typical Gα proteins, with the C-terminal region that codes for Gα-like domain and an extended N-terminal region without any distinctive features. Plant XLGs are encoded by entirely independent genes and therefore are different from the mammalian extra-long versions of Gα proteins such as XLαs and XXLαs, which are expressed due to the use of alternate exons (Abramowitz et al., 2004). Three to five copies of XLG proteins are present in the genome of most angiosperms. At the functional level, the XLG proteins have been characterized only from Arabidopsis, to date, where recent studies suggest that the proteins compete with canonical Gα for binding with the Gβγ dimers and may form functional trimeric complexes (Chakravorty et al., 2015; Maruta et al., 2015). The XLG and Gβγ mutants of Arabidopsis seem to function in the same pathways during the regulation of a subset of plant responses, for example primary root length and its regulation by abscisic acid (ABA); the root waving and skewing responses; sensitivity to Glc, salt, and tunicamycin; and sensitivity to certain bacterial and fungal pathogens (Ding et al., 2008; Pandey et al., 2008; Chakravorty et al., 2015; Maruta et al., 2015). However, many of the phenotypes of Arabidopsis Gα and Gβγ mutants are also distinct from that of the xlg triple mutants. For example, compared to the wild-type plants, the canonical G-protein mutants exhibit altered response to gibberellic acid, brassinosteroids, and auxin and show changes in leaf shape, branching, flowering time, and stomatal densities (Ullah et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2004; Pandey et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2008; Nilson and Assmann, 2010). The xlg triple mutants behave similarly to wild-type plants in all these aspects of development and signaling. Moreover, whether the XLG proteins are authentic GTP-binding and -hydrolyzing proteins and the extent to which they directly participate in G-protein-mediated signaling pathways remains confounding (Chakravorty et al., 2015; Maruta et al., 2015). Even in plants with a limited number of G-protein subunits such as Arabidopsis, one Gα and three XLGs potentially compete for a single Gβ protein, and the analysis of null mutants is not straightforward, that is, it is not possible to delineate whether the phenotypes seen in the Gα null mutants are truly due to the lack of Gα and/or because of an altered stoichiometry or availability of Gβ for the XLG proteins.As a bryophyte, Physcomitrella patens occupies a unique position in the evolutionary history of plants. It lacks vasculature but exhibits alteration between generations, which is dominated by a gametophytic (haploid) phase and a short sporophytic (diploid) phase (Cove et al., 2009). Many of the pathways related to hormone signaling, stress responses, and development are conserved between angiosperms and P. patens (Cove et al., 2009; Sun, 2011; Komatsu et al., 2013; Yasumura et al., 2015). It is also an intriguing example in the context of the G-protein signaling, because its fully sequenced genome does not encode a canonical Gα gene, although genes coding for the Gβ and Gγ proteins exist. A single gene for a potential XLG homolog also exists in the P. patens genome. This unique assortment of proteins predicts several alternative scenarios for G-protein signaling in P. patens. For example, the P. patens Gβγ proteins might be nonfunctional due to the loss of canonical Gα and are left in the genome as evolutionary artifacts. Alternatively, the Gβγ proteins of P. patens might maintain functionality regardless of the existence of a canonical Gα protein in pathways not regulated via classic G-protein signaling modes. Finally, a more likely scenario could be that the potential XLG protein can substitute for the Gα function in P. patens.To explore these possibilities and understand better the conserved and unique mechanisms of G-protein signaling pathways in plants and their significance, we examined the role of G-protein subunits in P. patens. We provide unambiguous evidence for the genetic coupling of XLG and Gβ proteins in controlling P. patens development. In contrast to all other plant species analyzed to date, where G-proteins are not essential for growth and survival, the XLG or one of the Gβ proteins is required for the sporophyte formation and life cycle completion in P. patens. Furthermore, one of the Arabidopsis XLG proteins, XLG2, and the canonical Gβ protein AGB1 can functionally complement the P. patens mutant phenotypes. These data provide new insights in the evolutionary breadth and the spectrum of signaling pathways regulated by G-proteins in plants.