scholarly journals R4 RGS proteins: Regulation of G-protein signaling and beyond

2007 ◽  
Vol 116 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geetanjali Bansal ◽  
Kirk M. Druey ◽  
Zhihui Xie
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling

scholarly journals Regulators of G protein Signaling (RGS) proteins (version 2020.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelin E. Ahlers-Dannen ◽  
Mohammed Alqinyah ◽  
Christopher Bodle ◽  
Josephine Bou Dagher ◽  
Bandana Chakravarti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽  
Signaling Cascades ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Proteins ◽  
Gtp Hydrolysis ◽  
Rgs Domain ◽  
G Protein Coupled

Regulator of G protein Signaling, or RGS, proteins serve an important regulatory role in signaling mediated by G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). They all share a common RGS domain that directly interacts with active, GTP-bound Gα subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins. RGS proteins stabilize the transition state for GTP hydrolysis on Gα and thus induce a conformational change in the Gα subunit that accelerates GTP hydrolysis, thereby effectively turning off signaling cascades mediated by GPCRs. This GTPase accelerating protein (GAP) activity is the canonical mechanism of action for RGS proteins, although many also possess additional functions and domains. RGS proteins are divided into four families, R4, R7, R12 and RZ based on sequence homology, domain structure as well as specificity towards Gα subunits. For reviews on RGS proteins and their potential as therapeutic targets, see e.g. [160, 377, 411, 415, 416, 512, 519, 312, 6].

scholarly journals Two Chimeric Regulators of G-protein Signaling (RGS) Proteins Differentially Modulate Soybean Heterotrimeric G-protein Cycle

2012 ◽  
Vol 287 (21) ◽  
pp. 17870-17881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swarup Roy Choudhury ◽  
Corey S. Westfall ◽  
John P. Laborde ◽  
Naveen C. Bisht ◽  
Joseph M. Jez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Protein

scholarly journals Probing the mutational landscape of regulators of G protein signaling proteins in cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (617) ◽  
pp. eaax8620 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent DiGiacomo ◽  
Marcin Maziarz ◽  
Alex Luebbers ◽  
Jillian M. Norris ◽  
Pandu Laksono ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
Mammalian Cells ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Mutational Landscape ◽  
Binding Interface

The advent of deep-sequencing techniques has revealed that mutations in G protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling pathways in cancer are more prominent than was previously appreciated. An emergent theme is that cancer-associated mutations tend to cause enhanced GPCR pathway activation to favor oncogenicity. Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are critical modulators of GPCR signaling that dampen the activity of heterotrimeric G proteins through their GTPase-accelerating protein (GAP) activity, which is conferred by a conserved domain dubbed the “RGS-box.” Here, we developed an experimental pipeline to systematically assess the mutational landscape of RGS GAPs in cancer. A pan-cancer bioinformatics analysis of the 20 RGS domains with GAP activity revealed hundreds of low-frequency mutations spread throughout the conserved RGS domain structure with a slight enrichment at positions that interface with G proteins. We empirically tested multiple mutations representing all RGS GAP subfamilies and sampling both G protein interface and noninterface positions with a scalable, yeast-based assay. Last, a subset of mutants was validated using G protein activity biosensors in mammalian cells. Our findings reveal that a sizable fraction of RGS protein mutations leads to a loss of function through various mechanisms, including disruption of the G protein–binding interface, loss of protein stability, or allosteric effects on G protein coupling. Moreover, our results also validate a scalable pipeline for the rapid characterization of cancer-associated mutations in RGS proteins.

scholarly journals R4 Regulator of G Protein Signaling (RGS) Proteins in Inflammation and Immunity

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 294-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhihui Xie ◽  
Eunice C. Chan ◽  
Kirk M. Druey
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling

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

1999 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karim Melliti ◽  
Ulises Meza ◽  
Rory Fisher ◽  
Brett Adams
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Ca Channel ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Ca Channels ◽  
Channel Inhibition ◽  
Kinetics Of ◽  
In Cells

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document