Regulators of G protein signaling: a bestiary of modular protein binding domains

Members of the newly discovered regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) families of proteins have a common RGS domain. This RGS domain is necessary for conferring upon RGS proteins the capacity to regulate negatively a variety of Galpha protein subunits. However, RGS proteins are more than simply negative regulators of signaling. RGS proteins can function as effector antagonists, and recent evidence suggests that RGS proteins can have positive effects on signaling as well. Many RGS proteins possess additional C- and N-terminal modular protein-binding domains and motifs. The presence of these additional modules within the RGS proteins provides for multiple novel regulatory interactions performed by these molecules. These regions are involved in conferring regulatory selectivity to specific Galpha-coupled signaling pathways, enhancing the efficacy of the RGS domain, and the translocation or targeting of RGS proteins to intracellular membranes. In other instances, these domains are involved in cross-talk between different Galpha-coupled signaling pathways and, in some cases, likely serve to integrate small GTPases with these G protein signaling pathways. This review discusses these C- and N-terminal domains and their roles in the biology of the brain-enriched RGS proteins. Methods that can be used to investigate the function of these domains are also discussed.     

Regulators of G protein signaling exhibit distinct patterns of gene expression and target G protein specificity in human lymphocytes

The newly recognized regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) attenuate heterotrimeric G protein signaling pathways. We have cloned an IL-2-induced gene from human T cells, cytokine-responsive gene 1, which encodes a member of the RGS family, RGS16. The RGS16 protein binds Gialpha and Gqalpha proteins present in T cells, and inhibits Gi- and Gq-mediated signaling pathways. By comparison, the mitogen-induced RGS2 inhibits Gq but not Gi signaling. Moreover, the two RGS genes exhibit marked differences in expression patterns. The IL-2-induced expression of the RGS16 gene in T cells is suppressed by elevated cAMP, whereas the RGS2 gene shows a reciprocal pattern of regulation by these stimuli. Because the mitogen and cytokine receptors that trigger expression of RGS2 and RGS16 in T cells do not activate heterotrimeric G proteins, these RGS proteins and the G proteins that they regulate may play a heretofore unrecognized role in T cell functional responses to Ag and cytokine activation.     

Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS proteins): novel central nervous system drug targets.

Many drugs of abuse signal through receptors that couple to G proteins (GPCRs), so the factors that control GPCR signaling are likely to be important to the understanding of drug abuse. Contributions by the recently identified protein family, regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) to the control of GPCR function are just beginning to be understood. RGS proteins can accelerate the deactivation of G proteins by 1000-fold and in cell systems they profoundly inhibit signaling by many receptors, including mu-opioid receptors. Coupled with the known dynamic regulation of RGS protein expression and function, they are of obvious interest in understanding tolerance and dependence mechanisms. Furthermore, drugs that could inhibit their activity could be useful in preventing the development of or in treating drug dependence.     

Regulators of G protein signaling proteins as determinants of the rate of desensitization of presynaptic calcium channels.

Norepinephrine inhibits omega-conotoxin GVIA-sensitive presynaptic Ca2+ channels in chick dorsal root ganglion neurons through two pathways, one mediated by Go and the other by Gi. These pathways desensitize at different rates. We have found that recombinant Galpha interacting protein (GAIP) and regulators of G protein signaling (RGS)4 selectively accelerate the rate of desensitization of Go- and Gi-mediated pathways, respectively. Blockade of endogenous RGS proteins using antibodies raised against Galpha interacting protein and RGS4 slows the rate of desensitization of these pathways in a selective manner. These results demonstrate that different RGS proteins may interact with Gi and Go selectively, giving rise to distinct time courses of transmitter-mediated effects.     

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

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

Regulation of angiotensin II-induced G protein signaling by phosducin-like protein

Phosducin-like protein (PhLP) is a broadly expressed member of the phosducin (Pd) family of G protein betagamma subunit (Gbetagamma)-binding proteins. Though PhLP has been shown to bind Gbetagamma in vitro, little is known about its physiological function. In the present study, the effect of PhLP on angiotensin II (Ang II) signaling was measured in Chinese hamster ovary cells expressing the type 1 Ang II receptor and various amounts of PhLP. Up to 3.6-fold overexpression of PhLP had no effect on Ang II-stimulated inositol trisphosphate (IP(3)) formation, whereas further increases caused an abrupt decrease in IP(3) production with half-maximal inhibition occurring at 6-fold PhLP overexpression. This threshold level for inhibition corresponds to the cellular concentration of cytosolic chaperonin complex, a recently described binding partner that preferentially binds PhLP over Gbetagamma. Results of pertussis toxin sensitivity, GTPgammaS binding, and immunoprecipitation experiments suggest that PhLP inhibits phospholipase Cbeta activation by dual mechanisms: (i) steric blockage of Gbetagamma activation of PLCbeta and (ii) interference with Gbetagamma-dependent cycling of G(q)alpha by the receptor. These results suggest that G protein signaling may be regulated through controlling the cellular concentration of free PhLP by inducing its expression or by regulating its binding to the chaperonin.     

Mass-dependent signaling between G protein coupled receptors

The present study provides evidence that G protein coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling pathways participate in an interactive signaling network governed by the principles of mass action. Using an inducible thromboxane A2 receptor (TPR)/platelet activating factor receptor (PAFR) co-expressing cell model, TPR or PAFR expression was independently up-regulated. Immunostaining and radioligand binding experiments demonstrated that this receptor up-regulation resulted in increased GPCR:G protein mass ratios. This increase in mass ratio impacted both TPR and PAFR ligand affinity. Specifically, up-regulating TPR expression not only decreased TPR ligand affinity, but also decreased the ligand affinity of PAFRs. A similar effect on ligand affinities was observed when PAFRs were up-regulated. In addition, increasing the GPCR:G protein mass ratio for TPRs led to desensitization of the calcium mobilization response to PAFR activation, and increasing PAFR mass desensitized the TPR-mediated calcium response. Finally, it was observed that an increased TPR:G protein mass ratio was associated with a shift in the TPR signaling response, and revealed an additional TPR signaling pathway through G(S). Collectively, these results describe a novel mechanism, i.e., mass-dependent GPCR signaling, by which cells can modulate their GPCR signaling pathways and signaling priorities.     

Pseudostructural inhibitors of G protein signaling during development

Heterotrimeric G proteins mediate signal transduction pathways to control development in fungal, plant, and animal cells. A recent study in the July issue of Molecular Cell identifies three proteins that, while not displaying sequence similarity to G protein subunits, appear to act as structural mimics of a Gbetagamma dimer to negatively regulate pseudohyphal growth in budding yeast.     

Polarity exchange at the interface of regulators of G protein signaling with G protein alpha-subunits

RGS proteins are GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) for G protein alpha-subunits. This GAP activity is mediated by the interaction of conserved residues on regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins and Galpha-subunits. We mutated the important contact sites Glu-89, Asn-90, and Asn-130 in RGS16 to lysine, aspartate, and alanine, respectively. The interaction of RGS16 and its mutants with Galpha(t) and Galpha(i1) was studied. The GAP activities of RGS16N90D and RGS16N130A were strongly attenuated. RGS16E89K increased GTP hydrolysis of Galpha(i1) by a similar extent, but with an about 100-fold reduced affinity compared with non-mutated RGS16. As Glu-89 in RGS16 is interacting with Lys-210 in Galpha(i1), this lysine was changed to glutamate for compensation. Galpha(i1)K210E was insensitive to RGS16 but interacted with RGS16E89K. In rat uterine smooth muscle cells, wild type RGS16 abolished G(i)-mediated alpha(2)-adrenoreceptor signaling, whereas RGS16E89K was without effect. Both Galpha(i1) and Galpha(i1)K210E mimicked the effect of alpha(2)-adrenoreceptor stimulation. Galpha(i1)K210E was sensitive to RGS16E89K and 10-fold more potent than Galpha(i1). Analogous mutants of Galpha(q) (Galpha(q)K215E) and RGS4 (RGS4E87K) were created and studied in COS-7 cells. The activity of wild type Galpha(q) was counteracted by wild type RGS4 but not by RGS4E87K. The activity of Galpha(q)K215E was inhibited by RGS4E87K, whereas non-mutated RGS4 was ineffective. We conclude that mutation of a conserved lysine residue to glutamate in Galpha(i) and Galpha(q) family members renders these proteins insensitive to wild type RGS proteins. Nevertheless, they are sensitive to glutamate to lysine mutants of RGS proteins. Such mutant pairs will be helpful tools in analyzing Galpha-RGS specificities in living cells.     

Stimulation of cellular signaling and G protein subunit dissociation by G protein betagamma subunit-binding peptides

We previously developed peptides that bind to G protein betagamma subunits and selectively block interactions between betagamma subunits and a subset of effectors in vitro (Scott, J. K., Huang, S. F., Gangadhar, B. P., Samoriski, G. M., Clapp, P., Gross, R. A., Taussig, R., and Smrcka, A. V. (2001) EMBO J. 20, 767-776). Here, we created cell-permeating versions of some of these peptides by N-terminal modification with either myristate or the cell permeation sequence from human immunodeficiency virus TAT protein. The myristoylated betagamma-binding peptide (mSIRK) applied to primary rat arterial smooth muscle cells caused rapid activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 in the absence of an agonist. This activation did not occur if the peptide lacked a myristate at the N terminus, if the peptide had a single point mutation to eliminate betagamma subunit binding, or if the cells stably expressed the C terminus of betaARK1. A human immunodeficiency virus TAT-modified peptide (TAT-SIRK) and a myristoylated version of a second peptide (mSCAR) that binds to the same site on betagamma subunits as mSIRK, also caused extracellular signal-regulated kinase activation. mSIRK also stimulated Jun N-terminal kinase phosphorylation, p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphorylation, and phospholipase C activity and caused Ca2+ release from internal stores. When tested with purified G protein subunits in vitro, SIRK promoted alpha subunit dissociation from betagamma subunits without stimulating nucleotide exchange. These data suggest a novel mechanism by which selective betagamma-binding peptides can release G protein betagamma subunits from heterotrimers to stimulate G protein pathways in cells.     

G protein signaling and asymmetric cell division.

Asymmetric cell division depends on the polarization of the dividing cell for the correct alignment of the mitotic spindle and the localization of cytoplasmic determinants. Receptor-independent activation of heterotrimeric G proteins by the Drosophila GoLoco protein Partner of Inscuteable seems to represent a novel mechanism to control these events.     

Human phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein facilitates heterotrimeric G protein-dependent signaling

In this study we report that human phosphatidylethanolamine-binding protein (hPBP) facilitates heterotrimeric G protein-coupled signaling. In Xenopus laevis oocytes, coexpression of hPBP with human mu opioid receptor, human delta opioid receptor, or human somatostatin receptor 2 evoked an agonist-induced increase in potassium conductance of G protein-activated inwardly rectifying potassium channels. This activation of heterotrimeric G protein signaling in oocytes could also be elicited by injection of bacterially overexpressed and purified hPBP. Stimulatory effect was pertussis toxin-sensitive and present even in the absence of coexpressed receptors. Additionally, an increase in G protein-mediated inhibition of adenylate cyclase activity, measured by the inhibition of forskolin-mediated cAMP accumulation, could be detected in HEK293 and NIH3T3 cells after expression of hPBP and in Xenopus oocytes after injection of hPBP. As [(35)S]guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate (GTPgammaS) binding to membranes prepared from hPBP-expressing cells was significantly elevated and recombinant hPBP dose-dependently stimulated [(35)S]GTPgammaS binding to native membranes, the results presented provide strong evidence that hPBP-induced effects are G protein-dependent. These data suggest a novel function of hPBP in regulating G protein and G protein-coupled receptor signaling in vivo.     

How regulators of G protein signaling achieve selective regulation

The regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) are a family of cellular proteins that play an essential regulatory role in G protein-mediated signal transduction. There are multiple RGS subfamilies consisting of over 20 different RGS proteins. They are basically the guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase)-accelerating proteins that specifically interact with G protein alpha subunits. RGS proteins display remarkable selectivity and specificity in their regulation of receptors, ion channels, and other G protein-mediated physiological events. The molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying such selectivity are complex and cooperate at many different levels. Recent research data have provided strong evidence that the spatiotemporal-specific expression of RGS proteins and their target components, as well as the specific protein-protein recognition and interaction through their characteristic structural domains and functional motifs, are determinants for RGS selectivity and specificity. Other molecular mechanisms, such as alternative splicing and scaffold proteins, also significantly contribute to RGS selectivity. To pursue a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of RGS selective regulation will be of great significance for the advancement of our knowledge of molecular and cellular signal transduction.     

Function of phosducin-like proteins in G protein signaling and chaperone-assisted protein folding

Members of the phosducin gene family were initially proposed to act as down-regulators of G protein signaling by binding G protein βγ dimers (Gβγ) and inhibiting their ability to interact with G protein subunits (G) and effectors. However, recent findings have over-turned this hypothesis by showing that most members of the phosducin family act as co-chaperones with the cytosolic chaperonin complex (CCT) to assist in the folding of a variety of proteins from their nascent polypeptides. In fact rather than inhibiting G protein pathways, phosducin-like protein 1 (PhLP1) has been shown to be essential for G protein signaling by catalyzing the folding and assembly of the Gβγ dimer. PhLP2 and PhLP3 have no role in G protein signaling, but they appear to assist in the folding of proteins essential in regulating cell cycle progression as well as actin and tubulin. Phosducin itself is the only family member that does not participate with CCT in protein folding, but it is believed to have a specific role in visual signal transduction to chaperone Gβγ subunits as they translocate to and from the outer and inner segments of photoreceptor cells during light-adaptation.     

Relationship between the G protein signaling and homologous desensitization of G protein-coupled receptors

Signaling and desensitization of G protein-coupled receptor are intimately related, and measuring them separately requires certain parameters that represent desensitization independently of signaling. In this study, we tested whether desensitization requires signaling in three different receptors, beta2-adrenergic receptor (beta2AR) in S49 lymphoma cells, alpha-factor pheromone receptor (Ste2p) in Saccharomyces cerevisiae LM102 cells, and dopamine D3 receptor (D3R) in HEK-293 cells. Agonist-induced beta-arrestin translocation to the plasma membrane or receptor sequestration was measured to estimate homologous desensitization. To separate the signaling and desensitization of beta2AR, which mediates stimulation of adenylyl cyclase, S49 lymphoma cys- cells that lack the alpha subunit of Gs were used. Stimulation of beta2AR in these cells failed to increase intracellular cAMP, but beta-arrestin translocation still occurred, suggesting that feedback from beta2AR signaling is not required for homologous desensitization to occur. Agonist-induced sequestration of the yeast Ste2p-L236R, which showed reduced signaling through G protein, was not different from that of wildtype Ste2p, suggesting that the receptor signaling and sequestration are not directly linked cellular events. Both G protein coupling and D3R signaling, measured as inhibition of cAMP production, were greatly enhanced by co-expression of exogenous alpha subunit of Go (Goalpha) or adenylyl cyclase type 5 (AC5), respectively. However, agonist-induced beta-arrestin translocation, receptor phosphorylation, and sequestration were not affected by co-expression of Galphao and AC5, suggesting that the extent of signaling does not determine desensitization intensity. Taken together, our results consistently suggest that G protein signaling and homologous desensitization are independent cellular processes.