scholarly journals Regulators of G protein Signaling (RGS) proteins (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammed Alqinyah ◽  
Christopher Bodle ◽  
Josephine Bou Dagher ◽  
Bandana Chakravarti ◽  
Shreoshi P. Choudhuri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sequence Analysis ◽  
G Protein ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Proteins ◽  
Gtp Hydrolysis ◽  
G Protein Signalling ◽  
Rgs Domain

Regulators of G protein signalling (RGS) proteins display a common RGS domain that interacts with the GTP-bound Gα subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins, enhancing GTP hydrolysis by stabilising the transition state [29, 419, 418], leading to a termination of GPCR signalling. Interactions through protein:protein interactions of many RGS proteins have been identified for targets other than heteromeric G proteins. Sequence analysis of the 20 RGS proteins suggests four families of RGS: RZ, R4, R7 and R12 families. Many of these proteins have been identified to have effects other than through targetting G proteins. Included here is RGS4 for which a number of pharmacological inhibitors have been described.

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

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].

scholarly journals Regulators of G protein Signaling (RGS) proteins in GtoPdb v.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].

scholarly journals RGS3 interacts with 14-3-3 via the N-terminal region distinct from the RGS (regulator of G-protein signalling) domain

2002 ◽  
Vol 365 (3) ◽  
pp. 677-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaxin NIU ◽  
Astrid SCHESCHONKA ◽  
Kirk M. DRUEY ◽  
Amanda DAVIS ◽  
Eleanor REED ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Binding Site ◽  
G Protein ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Proteins ◽  
G Protein Signalling ◽  
Vitro Binding ◽  
Rgs Domain ◽  
Hybrid Screening

RGS3 belongs to a family of the regulators of G-protein signalling (RGS), which bind and inhibit the Gα subunits of heterotrimeric G-proteins via a homologous RGS domain. Increasing evidence suggests that RGS proteins can also interact with targets other than G-proteins. Employing yeast two-hybrid screening of a cDNA library, we identified an interaction between RGS3 and the phosphoserine-binding protein 14-3-3. This interaction was confirmed by in vitro binding and co-immunoprecipitation experiments. RGS3-deletion analysis revealed the presence of a single 14-3-3-binding site located outside of the RGS domain. Ser264 was then identified as the 14-3-3-binding site of RGS3. The S264A mutation resulted in the loss of RGS3 binding to 14-3-3, without affecting its ability to bind Gαq. Signalling studies showed that the S264A mutant was more potent than the wild-type RGS3 in inhibition of G-protein-mediated signalling. Binding experiments revealed that RGS3 exists in two separate pools, either 14-3-3-bound or G-protein-bound, and that the 14-3-3-bound RGS3 is unable to interact with G-proteins. These data are consistent with the model wherein 14-3-3 serves as a scavenger of RGS3, regulating the amounts of RGS3 available for binding G-proteins. This study describes a new level in the regulation of G-protein signalling, in which the inhibitors of G-proteins, RGS proteins, can themselves be regulated by phosphorylation and binding 14-3-3.

Multiple mechanisms of receptor-G protein signaling specificity

1995 ◽  
Vol 269 (2) ◽  
pp. F141-F158 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Raymond
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Proteins ◽  
Cellular Functions ◽  
Signaling Specificity ◽  
Intracellular Signals ◽  
Specific Manner

The hormone-receptor-G protein complex transduces extracellular information into intracellular signals that ultimately regulate cellular functions in a highly specific manner. There are hundreds of receptor types that transduce signals through a relatively limited repertoire of heterotrimeric G proteins. Linear models of signaling specificity that require specific and highly selective coupling of hormone to receptor to G protein have proven inadequate to explain how highly particular signals are funneled through the G protein "bottleneck." Recent studies have uncovered a plethora of mechanisms that contribute to signaling specificity. This review focuses on the mechanisms that contribute to specificity in the interactions of receptors with G proteins.

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 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.

scholarly journals Heterotrimeric G protein signaling in polycystic kidney disease

2016 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 429-445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taketsugu Hama ◽  
Frank Park
Keyword(s):  
Kidney Disease ◽  
G Protein ◽  
Polycystic Kidney Disease ◽  
G Proteins ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Proteins ◽  
Polycystic Kidney ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Protein ◽  
Heterotrimeric G Protein Signaling

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a signalopathy of renal tubular epithelial cells caused by naturally occurring mutations in two distinct genes, polycystic kidney disease 1 ( PKD1) and 2 ( PKD2). Genetic variants in PKD1, which encodes the polycystin-1 (PC-1) protein, remain the predominant factor associated with the pathogenesis of nearly two-thirds of all patients diagnosed with PKD. Although the relationship between defective PC-1 with renal cystic disease initiation and progression remains to be fully elucidated, there are numerous clinical studies that have focused upon the control of effector systems involving heterotrimeric G protein regulation. A major regulator in the activation state of heterotrimeric G proteins are G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), which are defined by their seven transmembrane-spanning regions. PC-1 has been considered to function as an unconventional GPCR, but the mechanisms by which PC-1 controls signal processing, magnitude, or trafficking through heterotrimeric G proteins remains to be fully known. The diversity of heterotrimeric G protein signaling in PKD is further complicated by the presence of non-GPCR proteins in the membrane or cytoplasm that also modulate the functional state of heterotrimeric G proteins within the cell. Moreover, PC-1 abnormalities promote changes in hormonal systems that ultimately interact with distinct GPCRs in the kidney to potentially amplify or antagonize signaling output from PC-1. This review will focus upon the canonical and noncanonical signaling pathways that have been described in PKD with specific emphasis on which heterotrimeric G proteins are involved in the pathological reorganization of the tubular epithelial cell architecture to exacerbate renal cystogenic pathways.

The Mutation in the N-Terminal Domain of RGS4 Disrupts PA-Conferred Inhibitory Effect on GAP Activity

2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ying-Shi Ou-Yang ◽  
Yaping Tu ◽  
Fuyu Yang
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
Inhibitory Effect ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Site Mutation ◽  
Terminal Domain ◽  
Gtpase Activating Proteins ◽  
N Terminus ◽  
Rgs Domain

Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins are GTPase-activating proteins (GAP) for G protein α-subunits and are thought to be responsible for rapid deactivation of G protein mediated signaling pathway. In this present study, we demonstrate that PA is the most efficient candidate to inhibit GAP activity of RGS4. The functional significance of N-terminus of RGS4 in respose to PA-granted inhibition on GAP activity has been studied with the site mutation in the N-terminus of RGS4. These site-directed mutations in the N-terminal domain do not severely disrupt its association with liposomes of PA. However, RGS4L23E diminishes the inhibition of GAP activity by PA compared with the wild type RGS4, whereas RGSR22E abrogates the inhibitory effect by PA on GAP activity. The correspondent conformational discrepancy in the RGS domain of these mutants in the presence of PA vesicles was detected from fluorescence experiments. It is suggested that the functional pertinence between the N-terminus and RGS domain may be important to modulate PA-conferred inhibitory effect on its GAP activity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document