Assembly and Function of the Regulator of G protein Signaling 14 (RGS14)·H-Ras Signaling Complex in Live Cells Are Regulated by Gαi1and Gαi-linked G Protein-coupled Receptors

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].

Download Full-text

Regulators of G protein Signaling (RGS) proteins (version 2020.5) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology CITE ◽

10.2218/gtopdb/f891/2020.5 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 (5) ◽

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. [183, 411, 446, 450, 451, 558, 566, 345, 9].

Download Full-text

G protein signaling governing cell fate decisions involves opposing Gα subunits inCryptococcus neoformans

Molecular Biology of the Cell ◽

10.1091/mbc.e07-02-0133 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 18 (9) ◽

pp. 3237-3249 ◽

Cited By ~ 59

Author(s):

Yen-Ping Hsueh ◽

Chaoyang Xue ◽

Joseph Heitman

Keyword(s):

G Protein ◽

Cell Fate ◽

G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽

G Protein Signaling ◽

Protein Signaling ◽

Pheromone Receptor ◽

Cell Fate Decisions ◽

Regulatory Circuit ◽

Receptor Recognition ◽

G Protein Coupled

Communication between cells and their environments is often mediated by G protein-coupled receptors and cognate G proteins. In fungi, one such signaling cascade is the mating pathway triggered by pheromone/pheromone receptor recognition. Unlike Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which expresses two Gα subunits, most filamentous ascomycetes and basidiomycetes have three Gα subunits. Previous studies have defined the Gα subunit acting upstream of the cAMP-protein kinase A pathway, but it has been unclear which Gα subunit is coupled to the pheromone receptor and response pathway. Here we report that in the pathogenic basidiomycetous yeast Cryptococcus neoformans, two Gα subunits (Gpa2, Gpa3) sense pheromone and govern mating. gpa2 gpa3 double mutants, but neither gpa2 nor gpa3 single mutants, are sterile in bilateral crosses. By contrast, deletion of GPA3 (but not GPA2) constitutively activates pheromone response and filamentation. Expression of GPA2 and GPA3 is differentially regulated: GPA3 expression is induced by nutrient-limitation, whereas GPA2 is induced during mating. Based on the phenotype of dominant active alleles, Gpa2 and Gpa3 signal in opposition: Gpa2 promotes mating, whereas Gpa3 inhibits. The incorporation of an additional Gα into the regulatory circuit enabled increased signaling complexity and facilitated cell fate decisions involving choice between yeast growth and filamentous asexual/sexual development.

Download Full-text

Regulators of G protein Signaling (RGS) proteins in GtoPdb v.2021.2

IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology CITE ◽

10.2218/gtopdb/f891/2021.2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 (2) ◽

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. [225, 529, 578, 583, 584, 742, 753, 444, 10].

Download Full-text

Contribution of AT1R mechanoactivation to the arterial myogenic response and its regulation by RGS5 protein in skeletal muscle arterioles

10.32469/10355/57770 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

◽

Kwangseok Hong

Keyword(s):

G Protein ◽

Mechanical Stimulus ◽

G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽

G Protein Signaling ◽

Myogenic Response ◽

Protein Signaling ◽

Regulatory Molecule ◽

Cytoskeleton Reorganization ◽

G Protein Coupled

Although intracellular mechanisms underlying the arteriolar myogenic response have been well-defined, the mechanotransduction events transducing the mechanical stimulus remain unclear. Recently, ligand-independent activation of G protein-coupled receptors (in particular, the angiotensin II type 1 receptor; AT1R) has been suggested to play a major role in vascular smooth muscle mechanotransduction, thereby contributing to myogenic constriction. However, the downstream pathways following ligand-independent activation of the AT1R have not been clearly elucidated. Our studies provide pharmacological evidence that the mechanically activated AT1R generates diacylglycerol which in turn activates PKC that subsequently induces actin cytoskeleton reorganization for myogenic constriction. In terms of physiological roles, the arterial myogenic response acts to generate vascular tone, prevent capillaries from being damaged, and reduce edema due to high capillary hydrostatic pressure. Thus, an exaggerated AT1R-mediated myogenic constriction could conceivably contribute to vascular disorders. As a result, small arteries likely exhibit negative feedback regulatory mechanisms to prevent such an exaggerated myogenic response. In regard to this, we discovered that ligand-dependent or-independent activation of the AT1R causes trafficking of an important regulatory molecule, RGS5 (Regulators of G protein Signaling) protein, which may modulate Ang II or myogenic-mediated constriction by terminating Gq/11 protein-dependent signaling.

Download Full-text

Stachel-independent modulation of GPR56/ADGRG1 signaling by synthetic ligands directed to its extracellular region

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ◽

10.1073/pnas.1708810114 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 114 (38) ◽

pp. 10095-10100 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Gabriel S. Salzman ◽

Shu Zhang ◽

Ankit Gupta ◽

Akiko Koide ◽

Shohei Koide ◽

...

Keyword(s):

G Protein ◽

Cancer Progression ◽

G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽

G Protein Signaling ◽

Biological Processes ◽

Protein Signaling ◽

Extracellular Region ◽

Mechanistic Analysis ◽

Signaling Domains ◽

G Protein Coupled

Adhesion G protein-coupled receptors (aGPCRs) play critical roles in diverse biological processes, including neurodevelopment and cancer progression. aGPCRs are characterized by large and diverse extracellular regions (ECRs) that are autoproteolytically cleaved from their membrane-embedded signaling domains. Although ECRs regulate receptor function, it is not clear whether ECRs play a direct regulatory role in G-protein signaling or simply serve as a protective cap for the activating “Stachel” sequence. Here, we present a mechanistic analysis of ECR-mediated regulation of GPR56/ADGRG1, an aGPCR with two domains [pentraxin and laminin/neurexin/sex hormonebinding globulin-like (PLL) and G protein-coupled receptor autoproteolysis-inducing (GAIN)] in its ECR. We generated a panel of high-affinity monobodies directed to each of these domains, from which we identified activators and inhibitors of GPR56-mediated signaling. Surprisingly, these synthetic ligands modulated signaling of a GPR56 mutant defective in autoproteolysis and hence, inStachelpeptide exposure. These results provide compelling support for a ligand-induced and ECR-mediated mechanism that regulates aGPCR signaling in a transient and reversible manner, which occurs in addition to theStachel-mediated activation.

Download Full-text

How a Mycoparasite Employs G-Protein Signaling: Using the Example of Trichoderma

Journal of Signal Transduction ◽

10.1155/2010/123126 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 2010 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Markus Omann ◽

Susanne Zeilinger

Keyword(s):

G Protein ◽

Pathogenic Fungi ◽

G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽

Host Recognition ◽

G Protein Signaling ◽

Protein Signaling ◽

Lytic Enzymes ◽

Antifungal Metabolites ◽

Downstream Effectors ◽

G Protein Coupled

Mycoparasitic Trichoderma spp. act as potent biocontrol agents against a number of plant pathogenic fungi, whereupon the mycoparasitic attack includes host recognition followed by infection structure formation and secretion of lytic enzymes and antifungal metabolites leading to the host's death. Host-derived signals are suggested to be recognized by receptors located on the mycoparasite's cell surface eliciting an internal signal transduction cascade which results in the transcription of mycoparasitism-relevant genes. Heterotrimeric G proteins of fungi transmit signals originating from G-protein-coupled receptors mainly to the cAMP and the MAP kinase pathways resulting in regulation of downstream effectors. Components of the G-protein signaling machinery such as G subunits and G-protein-coupled receptors were recently shown to play crucial roles in Trichoderma mycoparasitism as they govern processes such as the production of extracellular cell wall lytic enzymes, the secretion of antifungal metabolites, and the formation of infection structures.

Download Full-text