Modulation of receptor dynamics by the regulator of G protein signaling Sst2

G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling is fundamental to physiological processes such as vision, the immune response, and wound healing. In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, GPCRs detect and respond to gradients of pheromone during mating. After pheromone stimulation, the GPCR Ste2 is removed from the cell membrane, and new receptors are delivered to the growing edge. The regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) protein Sst2 acts by accelerating GTP hydrolysis and facilitating pathway desensitization. Sst2 is also known to interact with the receptor Ste2. Here we show that Sst2 is required for proper receptor recovery at the growing edge of pheromone-stimulated cells. Mathematical modeling suggested pheromone-induced synthesis of Sst2 together with its interaction with the receptor function to reestablish a receptor pool at the site of polarized growth. To validate the model, we used targeted genetic perturbations to selectively disrupt key properties of Sst2 and its induction by pheromone. Together our results reveal that a regulator of G protein signaling can also regulate the G protein–coupled receptor. Whereas Sst2 negatively regulates G protein signaling, it acts in a positive manner to promote receptor retention at the growing edge.     

Yeast GPCR signaling reflects the fraction of occupied receptors,not the number

According to receptor theory, the effect of a ligand depends on the amount of agonist–receptor complex. Therefore, changes in receptor abundance should have quantitative effects. However, the response to pheromone in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is robust (unaltered) to increases or reductions in the abundance of the G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR), Ste2, responding instead to the fraction of occupied receptor. We found experimentally that this robustness originates during G‐protein activation. We developed a complete mathematical model of this step, which suggested the ability to compute fractional occupancy depends on the physical interaction between the inhibitory regulator of G‐protein signaling (RGS), Sst2, and the receptor. Accordingly, replacing Sst2 by the heterologous hsRGS4, incapable of interacting with the receptor, abolished robustness. Conversely, forcing hsRGS4:Ste2 interaction restored robustness. Taken together with other results of our work, we conclude that this GPCR pathway computes fractional occupancy because ligand‐bound GPCR–RGS complexes stimulate signaling while unoccupied complexes actively inhibit it. In eukaryotes, many RGSs bind to specific GPCRs, suggesting these complexes with opposing activities also detect fraction occupancy by a ratiometric measurement. Such complexes operate as push‐pull devices, which we have recently described.     

Genome-scale analysis reveals Sst2 as the principal regulator of mating pheromone signaling in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae

A common property of G protein-coupled receptors is that they become less responsive with prolonged stimulation. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS proteins) are well known to accelerate G protein GTPase activity and do so by stabilizing the transition state conformation of the G protein alpha subunit. In the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae there are four RGS-homologous proteins (Sst2, Rgs2, Rax1, and Mdm1) and two Galpha proteins (Gpa1 and Gpa2). We show that Sst2 is the only RGS protein that binds selectively to the transition state conformation of Gpa1. The other RGS proteins also bind Gpa1 and modulate pheromone signaling, but to a lesser extent and in a manner clearly distinct from Sst2. To identify other candidate pathway regulators, we compared pheromone responses in 4,349 gene deletion mutants representing nearly all nonessential genes in yeast. A number of mutants produced an increase (sst2, bar1, asc1, and ygl024w) or decrease (cla4) in pheromone sensitivity or resulted in pheromone-independent signaling (sst2, pbs2, gas1, and ygl024w). These findings suggest that Sst2 is the principal regulator of Gpa1-mediated signaling in vivo but that other proteins also contribute in distinct ways to pathway regulation.     

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.     

Sst2, a negative regulator of pheromone signaling in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae: expression, localization, and genetic interaction and physical association with Gpa1 (the G-protein alpha subunit).

Sst2 is the prototype for the newly recognized RGS (for regulators of G-protein signaling) family. Cells lacking the pheromone-inducible SST2 gene product fail to resume growth after exposure to pheromone. Conversely, overproduction of Sst2 markedly enhanced the rate of recovery from pheromone-induced arrest in the long-term halo bioassay and detectably dampened signaling in a short-term assay of pheromone response (phosphorylation of Ste4, Gbeta subunit). When the GPA1 gene product (Galpha subunit) is absent, the pheromone response pathway is constitutively active and, consequently, growth ceases. Despite sustained induction of Sst2 (observed with specific anti-Sst2 antibodies), gpa1delta mutants remain growth arrested, indicating that the action of Sst2 requires the presence of Gpa1. The N-terminal domain (residues 3 to 307) of Sst2 (698 residues) has sequence similarity to the catalytic regions of bovine GTPase-activating protein and human neurofibromatosis tumor suppressor protein; segments in the C-terminal domain of Sst2 (between residues 417 and 685) are homologous to other RGS proteins. Both the N- and C-terminal domains were required for Sst2 function in vivo. Consistent with a role for Sst2 in binding to and affecting the activity of Gpa1, the majority of Sst2 was membrane associated and colocalized with Gpa1 at the plasma membrane, as judged by sucrose density gradient fractionation. Moreover, from cell extracts, Sst2 could be isolated in a complex with Gpa1 (expressed as a glutathione S-transferase fusion); this association withstood the detergent and salt conditions required for extraction of these proteins from cell membranes. Also, SST2+ cells expressing a GTPase-defective GPA1 mutant displayed an increased sensitivity to pheromone, whereas sst2 cells did not. These results demonstrate that Sst2 and Gpa1 interact physically and suggest that Sst2 is a direct negative regulator of Gpa1.     

Snapin interacts with the N-terminus of regulator of G protein signaling 7

The N-terminus of regulator of G protein signaling 7 (RGS7) contains a dishevelled/egl-10/pleckstrin (DEP) domain of unknown function. To gain insight into its function, we used yeast two-hybrid analysis to screen a human whole brain cDNA library in order to identify proteins that interact specifically with the N-terminus of human RGS7 (amino acid residues 1-248). From this analysis, we identified snapin, a protein associated with the SNARE complex in neurons, as an interactor with the N-terminus of RGS7. Deletion mutation analysis in yeast demonstrated that the interaction between RGS7 and snapin is specific and is mediated primarily by amino acid residues 1-69 of RGS7 (which contains the proximal portion of the DEP domain). The interaction between RGS7 and snapin was also demonstrated in mammalian cells by coimmunoprecipitation and pull-down assays. Our results suggest that RGS7 could play a role in synaptic vesicle exocytosis through its interaction with snapin.     

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.     

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.     

The membrane anchor R7BP controls the proteolytic stability of the striatal specific RGS protein, RGS9-2

A member of the RGS (regulators of G protein signaling) family, RGS9-2 is a critical regulator of G protein signaling pathways that control locomotion and reward signaling in the brain. RGS9-2 is specifically expressed in striatal neurons where it forms complexes with its newly discovered partner, R7BP (R7 family binding protein). Interaction with R7BP is important for the subcellular targeting of RGS9-2, which in native neurons is found in plasma membrane and its specializations, postsynaptic densities. Here we report that R7BP plays an additional important role in determining proteolytic stability of RGS9-2. We have found that co-expression with R7BP dramatically elevates the levels of RGS9-2 and its constitutive subunit, Gbeta5. Measurement of the RGS9-2 degradation kinetics in cells indicates that R7BP markedly reduces the rate of RGS9-2.Gbeta5 proteolysis. Lentivirus-mediated RNA interference knockdown of the R7BP expression in native striatal neurons results in the corresponding decrease in RGS9-2 protein levels. Analysis of the molecular determinants that mediate R7BP/RGS9-2 binding to result in proteolytic protection have identified that the binding site for R7BP in RGS proteins is formed by pairing of the DEP (Disheveled, EGL-10, Pleckstrin) domain with the R7H (R7 homology), a domain of previously unknown function that interacts with four putative alpha-helices of the R7BP core. These findings provide a mechanism for the regulation of the RGS9 protein stability in the striatal neurons.     

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.     

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.     

Subcellular localization of regulator of G protein signaling RGS7 complex in neurons and transfected cells

The R7 family of regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) is involved in many functions of the nervous system. This family includes RGS6, RGS7, RGS9, and RGS11 gene products and is defined by the presence of the characteristic first found in Disheveled, Egl-10, Pleckstrin (DEP), DEP helical extension (DHEX), Gγ-like, and RGS domains. Herein, we examined the subcellular localization of RGS7, the most broadly expressed R7 member. Our immunofluorescence studies of retinal and dorsal root ganglion neurons showed that RGS7 concentrated at the plasma membrane of cell bodies, in structures resembling lamellipodia or filopodia along the processes, and at the dendritic tips. At the plasma membrane of dorsal root ganglia neurons, RGS7 co-localized with its known binding partners R7 RGS binding protein (R7BP), Gαo, and Gαq. More than 50% of total RGS7-specific immunofluorescence was present in the cytoplasm, primarily within numerous small puncta that did not co-localize with R7BP. No specific RGS7 or R7BP immunoreactivity was detected in the nuclei. In transfected cell lines, ectopic RGS7 had both diffuse cytosolic and punctate localization patterns. RGS7 also localized in centrosomes. Structure-function analysis showed that the punctate localization was mediated by the DEP/DHEX domains, and centrosomal localization was dependent on the DHEX domain.     

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.     

Spinophilin/neurabin reciprocally regulate signaling intensity by G protein-coupled receptors

Spinophilin (SPL) and neurabin (NRB) are structurally similar scaffolding proteins with several protein binding modules, including actin and PP1 binding motifs and PDZ and coiled-coil domains. SPL also binds regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins and the third intracellular loop (3iL) of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) to reduce the intensity of Ca(2+) signaling by GPCRs. The role of NRB in Ca(2+) signaling is not known. In the present work, we used biochemical and functional assays in model systems and in SPL(-/-) and NRB(-/-) mice to show that SPL and NRB reciprocally regulate Ca(2+) signaling by GPCRs. Thus, SPL and NRB bind all members of the R4 subfamily of RGS proteins tested (RGS1, RGS2, RGS4, RGS16) and GAIP. By contract, SPL, but not NRB, binds the 3iL of the GPCRs alpha(1B)-adrenergic (alpha(1B)AR), dopamine, CCKA, CCKB and the muscarinic M3 receptors. Coexpression of SPL or NRB with the alpha(1B)AR in Xenopus oocytes revealed that SPL reduces, whereas NRB increases, the intensity of Ca(2+) signaling by alpha(1B)AR. Accordingly, deletion of SPL in mice enhanced binding of RGS2 to NRB and Ca(2+) signaling by alphaAR, whereas deletion of NRB enhanced binding of RGS2 to SPL and reduced Ca(2+) signaling by alphaAR. This was due to reciprocal modulation by SPL and NRB of the potency of RGS2 to inhibit Ca(2+) signaling by alphaAR. These findings suggest a novel mechanism of regulation of GPCR-mediated Ca(2+) signaling in which SPL/NRB forms a functional pair of opposing regulators that modulates Ca(2+) signaling intensity by GPCRs by determining the extent of inhibition by the R4 family of RGS proteins.     

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.