scholarly journals Distinct G protein–coupled receptor recycling pathways allow spatial control of downstream G protein signaling

2016 ◽  
Vol 214 (7) ◽  
pp. 797-806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanna Lynn Bowman ◽  
Daniel John Shiwarski ◽  
Manojkumar A. Puthenveedu
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
Cell Biology ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Sorting Nexin ◽  
Sequence Dependent ◽  
Physiological Relevance ◽  
G Protein Coupled ◽  
Dependent Pathway

G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) are recycled via a sequence-dependent pathway that is spatially and biochemically distinct from bulk recycling. Why there are two distinct recycling pathways from the endosome is a fundamental question in cell biology. In this study, we show that the separation of these two pathways is essential for normal spatial encoding of GPCR signaling. The prototypical β-2 adrenergic receptor (B2AR) activates Gα stimulatory protein (Gαs) on the endosome exclusively in sequence-dependent recycling tubules marked by actin/sorting nexin/retromer tubular (ASRT) microdomains. B2AR was detected in an active conformation in bulk recycling tubules, but was unable to activate Gαs. Protein kinase A phosphorylation of B2AR increases the fraction of receptors localized to ASRT domains and biases the downstream transcriptional effects of B2AR to genes controlled by endosomal signals. Our results identify the physiological relevance of separating GPCR recycling from bulk recycling and suggest a mechanism to tune downstream responses of GPCR signaling by manipulating the spatial origin of G protein signaling.

scholarly journals A Physiologically Required G Protein-coupled Receptor (GPCR)-Regulator of G Protein Signaling (RGS) Interaction That Compartmentalizes RGS Activity

2013 ◽  
Vol 288 (38) ◽  
pp. 27327-27342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne Croft ◽  
Claire Hill ◽  
Eilish McCann ◽  
Michael Bond ◽  
Manuel Esparza-Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Additional Layer ◽  
Physiological Relevance ◽  
Gtpase Cycle ◽  
G Protein Coupled

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.

scholarly journals GPR158/179 regulate G protein signaling by controlling localization and activity of the RGS7 complexes

2012 ◽  
Vol 197 (6) ◽  
pp. 711-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Orlandi ◽  
Ekaterina Posokhova ◽  
Ikuo Masuho ◽  
Thomas A. Ray ◽  
Nazarul Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
Night Vision ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Rgs Proteins ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Signaling Specificity ◽  
Orphan Gpcrs ◽  
G Protein Coupled

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.

scholarly journals Biased agonists of the chemokine receptor CXCR3 differentially drive formation of Gαi:β-arrestin complexes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Zheng ◽  
Jeffrey S. Smith ◽  
Anmol Warman ◽  
Issac Choi ◽  
Jaimee N. Gundry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complex Formation ◽  
Signaling Pathway ◽  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Surface Receptors ◽  
Biased Agonism ◽  
G Protein Coupled

AbstractG-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the largest family of cell surface receptors, signal through the proximal effectors G proteins and β-arrestins to influence nearly every biological process. Classically, the G protein and β-arrestin signaling pathways have largely been considered separable. Recently, direct interactions between Gα protein and β-arrestin have been described and suggest a distinct GPCR signaling pathway. Within these newly described Gα:β-arrestin complexes, Gαi/o, but not other Gα protein subtypes, have been appreciated to directly interact with β-arrestin, regardless of canonical GPCR Gα protein subtype coupling. However it is unclear how biased agonists differentially regulate this newly described Gαi:β-arrestin interaction, if at all. Here we report that endogenous ligands (chemokines) of the GPCR CXCR3, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11, along with two small molecule biased CXCR3 agonists, differentially promote the formation of Gαi:β-arrestin complexes. The ability of CXCR3 agonists to form Gαi:β-arrestin complexes does not correlate well with either G protein signaling or β-arrestin recruitment. Conformational biosensors demonstrate that ligands that promoted Gαi:β-arrestin complex formation generated similar β-arrestin conformations. We find these Gαi:β-arrestin complexes can associate with CXCR3, but not with ERK. These findings further support that Gαi:β-arrestin complex formation is a distinct GPCR signaling pathway and enhance our understanding of biased agonism.

scholarly journals Regulation of the Epithelial Na+ Channel by the RH Domain of G Protein-coupled Receptor Kinase, GRK2, and Gαq/11

2011 ◽  
Vol 286 (22) ◽  
pp. 19259-19269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Il-Ha Lee ◽  
Sung-Hee Song ◽  
Craig R. Campbell ◽  
Sharad Kumar ◽  
David I. Cook ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
Kinase Activity ◽  
Receptor Activation ◽  
Na Channel ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Receptor Kinase ◽  
G Protein Coupled Receptor ◽  
G Protein Coupled ◽  
Α Subunits

The G protein-coupled receptor kinase (GRK2) belongs to a family of protein kinases that phosphorylates agonist-activated G protein-coupled receptors, leading to G protein-receptor uncoupling and termination of G protein signaling. GRK2 also contains a regulator of G protein signaling homology (RH) domain, which selectively interacts with α-subunits of the Gq/11 family that are released during G protein-coupled receptor activation. We have previously reported that kinase activity of GRK2 up-regulates activity of the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) in a Na+ absorptive epithelium by blocking Nedd4-2-dependent inhibition of ENaC. In the present study, we report that GRK2 also regulates ENaC by a mechanism that does not depend on its kinase activity. We show that a wild-type GRK2 (wtGRK2) and a kinase-dead GRK2 mutant (K220RGRK2), but not a GRK2 mutant that lacks the C-terminal RH domain (ΔRH-GRK2) or a GRK2 mutant that cannot interact with Gαq/11/14 (D110AGRK2), increase activity of ENaC. GRK2 up-regulates the basal activity of the channel as a consequence of its RH domain binding the α-subunits of Gq/11. We further found that expression of constitutively active Gαq/11 mutants significantly inhibits activity of ENaC. Conversely, co-expression of siRNA against Gαq/11 increases ENaC activity. The effect of Gαq on ENaC activity is not due to change in ENaC membrane expression and is independent of Nedd4-2. These findings reveal a novel mechanism by which GRK2 and Gq/11 α-subunits regulate the activity ENaC.

scholarly journals Endogenous modification of the chemoattractant CXCL5 alters receptor usage and enhances its activity toward neutrophils and monocytes

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (673) ◽  
pp. eaax3053
Author(s):  
Mieke Metzemaekers ◽  
Anneleen Mortier ◽  
Alessandro Vacchini ◽  
Daiane Boff ◽  
Karen Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Signaling Pathways ◽  
G Protein ◽  
Chemotactic Activity ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
Agonist Activity ◽  
N Terminus ◽  
G Protein Coupled

The inflammatory human chemokine CXCL5 interacts with the G protein–coupled receptor CXCR2 to induce chemotaxis and activation of neutrophils. CXCL5 also has weak agonist activity toward CXCR1. The N-terminus of CXCL5 can be modified by proteolytic cleavage or deimination of Arg9 to citrulline (Cit), and these modifications can occur separately or together. Here, we chemically synthesized native CXCL5(1–78), truncated CXCL5 [CXCL5(9–78)], and the citrullinated (Cit9) versions and characterized their functions in vitro and in vivo. Compared with full-length CXCL5, N-terminal truncation resulted in enhanced potency to induce G protein signaling and β-arrestin recruitment through CXCR2, increased CXCL5-initiated internalization of CXCR2, and greater Ca2+ signaling downstream of not only CXCR2 but also CXCR1. Citrullination did not affect the capacity of CXCL5 to activate classical or alternative signaling pathways. Administering the various CXCL5 forms to mice revealed that in addition to neutrophils, CXCL5 exerted chemotactic activity toward monocytes and that this activity was increased by N-terminal truncation. These findings were confirmed by in vitro chemotaxis and Ca2+ signaling assays with primary human CD14+ monocytes and human THP-1 monocytes. In vitro and in vivo analyses suggested that CXCL5 targeted monocytes through CXCR1 and CXCR2. Thus, truncation of the N-terminus makes CXCL5 a more potent chemoattractant for both neutrophils and monocytes that acts through CXCR1 and CXCR2.

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 Rescue of defective G protein–coupled receptor function in vivo by intermolecular cooperation

2010 ◽  
Vol 107 (5) ◽  
pp. 2319-2324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adolfo Rivero-Müller ◽  
Yen-Yin Chou ◽  
Inhae Ji ◽  
Svetlana Lajic ◽  
Aylin C. Hanyaloglu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
G Protein ◽  
G Protein Coupled Receptors ◽  
Luteinizing Hormone Receptor ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Gpcr Signaling ◽  
Physiological Relevance ◽  
Biosynthesis Activation ◽  
Mutant Receptors ◽  
G Protein Coupled

G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) are ubiquitous mediators of signaling of hormones, neurotransmitters, and sensing. The old dogma is that a one ligand/one receptor complex constitutes the functional unit of GPCR signaling. However, there is mounting evidence that some GPCRs form dimers or oligomers during their biosynthesis, activation, inactivation, and/or internalization. This evidence has been obtained exclusively from cell culture experiments, and proof for the physiological significance of GPCR di/oligomerization in vivo is still missing. Using the mouse luteinizing hormone receptor (LHR) as a model GPCR, we demonstrate that transgenic mice coexpressing binding-deficient and signaling-deficient forms of LHR can reestablish normal LH actions through intermolecular functional complementation of the mutant receptors in the absence of functional wild-type receptors. These results provide compelling in vivo evidence for the physiological relevance of intermolecular cooperation in GPCR signaling.

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 Mechanism of β-arrestin recruitment by the μ-opioid G protein-coupled receptor

2020 ◽  
Vol 117 (28) ◽  
pp. 16346-16355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amirhossein Mafi ◽  
Soo-Kyung Kim ◽  
William A. Goddard
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
G Protein ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
G Protein Signaling ◽  
Protein Signaling ◽  
G Protein Coupled Receptor ◽  
Intracellular Loop ◽  
Cytoplasmic Region ◽  
Gi Protein ◽  
G Protein Coupled

Agonists to the μ-opioid G protein-coupled receptor (μOR) can alleviate pain through activation of G protein signaling, but they can also induce β-arrestin activation, leading to such side effects as respiratory depression. Biased ligands to μOR that induce G protein signaling without inducing β-arrestin signaling can alleviate pain while reducing side effects. However, the mechanism for stimulating β-arrestin signaling is not known, making it difficult to design optimum biased ligands. We use extensive molecular dynamics simulations to determine three-dimensional (3D) structures of activated β-arrestin2 stabilized by phosphorylated μOR bound to the morphine and D-Ala2,N-MePhe4, Gly-ol]-enkephalin (DAMGO) nonbiased agonists and to the TRV130 biased agonist. For nonbiased agonists, we find that the β-arrestin2 couples to the phosphorylated μOR by forming strong polar interactions with intracellular loop 2 (ICL2) and either the ICL3 or cytoplasmic region of transmembrane (TM6). Strikingly, Gi protein makes identical strong bonds with these same ICLs. Thus, the Gi protein and β-arrestin2 compete for the same binding site even though their recruitment leads to much different outcomes. On the other hand, we find that TRV130 has a greater tendency to bind the extracellular portion of TM2 and TM3, which repositions TM6 in the cytoplasmic region of μOR, hindering β-arrestin2 from making polar anchors to the ICL3 or to the cytosolic end of TM6. This dramatically reduces the affinity between μOR and β-arrestin2.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document