Coordinate regulation of G protein signaling via dynamic interactions of receptor and GAP

Systems modeling of oncogenic G-protein and GPCR signaling reveals unexpected differences in downstream pathway activation

Mathematical models of biochemical reaction networks are an important and emerging tool for the study of cell signaling networks involved in disease processes. One promising potential application of such mathematical models is the study of how disease-causing mutations promote the signaling phenotype that contributes to the disease. It is commonly assumed that one must have a thorough characterization of the network readily available for mathematical modeling to be useful, but we hypothesized that mathematical modeling could be useful when there is incomplete knowledge and that it could be a tool for discovery that opens new areas for further exploration. In the present study, we first develop a mechanistic mathematical model of a G-protein coupled receptor signaling network that is mutated in almost all cases of uveal melanoma and use model-driven explorations to uncover and explore multiple new areas for investigating this disease. Modeling the two major, mutually-exclusive, oncogenic mutations (Gαq/11 and CysLT2R) revealed the potential for previously unknown qualitative differences between seemingly interchangeable disease-promoting mutations, and our experiments confirmed oncogenic CysLT2R was impaired at activating the FAK/YAP/TAZ pathway relative to Gαq/11. This led us to hypothesize that CYSLTR2 mutations in UM must co-occur with other mutations to activate FAK/YAP/TAZ signaling, and our bioinformatic analysis uncovers a role for co-occurring mutations involving the plexin/semaphorin pathway, which has been shown capable of activating this pathway. Overall, this work highlights the power of mechanism-based computational systems biology as a discovery tool that can leverage available information to open new research areas.

Phospholipase C families: Common themes and versatility in physiology and pathology

Phosphoinositide-specific phospholipase Cs (PLCs) are expressed in all mammalian cells and play critical roles in signal transduction. To obtain a comprehensive understanding of these enzymes in physiology and pathology, a detailed structural, biochemical, cell biological and genetic information is required. In this review, we cover all these aspects to summarize current knowledge of the entire superfamily. The families of PLCs have expanded from 13 enzymes to 16 with the identification of the atypical PLCs in the human genome. Recent structural insights highlight the common themes that cover not only the substrate catalysis but also the mechanisms of activation. This involves the release of autoinhibitory interactions that, in the absence of stimulation, maintain classical PLC enzymes in their inactive forms. Studies of individual PLCs provide a rich repertoire of PLC function in different physiologies. Furthermore, the genetic studies discovered numerous mutated and rare variants of PLC enzymes and their link to human disease development, greatly expanding our understanding of their roles in diverse pathologies. Notably, substantial evidence now supports involvement of different PLC isoforms in the development of specific cancer types, immune disorders and neurodegeneration. These advances will stimulate the generation of new drugs that target PLC enzymes, and will therefore open new possibilities for treatment of a number of diseases where current therapies remain ineffective.

A Collision Coupling Model Governs the Activation of Neuronal GIRK1/2 Channels by Muscarinic-2 Receptors

The G protein-activated Inwardly Rectifying K⁺-channel (GIRK) modulates heart rate and neuronal excitability. Following G-Protein Coupled Receptor (GPCR)-mediated activation of heterotrimeric G proteins (Gαβγ), opening of the channel is obtained by direct binding of Gβγ subunits. Interestingly, GIRKs are solely activated by Gβγ subunits released from Gα_i/o-coupled GPCRs, despite the fact that all receptor types, for instance Gα_q-coupled, are also able to provide Gβγ subunits. It is proposed that this specificity and fast kinetics of activation stem from pre-coupling (or pre-assembly) of proteins within this signaling cascade. However, many studies, including our own, point towards a diffusion-limited mechanism, namely collision coupling. Here, we set out to address this long-standing question by combining electrophysiology, imaging, and mathematical modeling. Muscarinic-2 receptors (M2R) and neuronal GIRK1/2 channels were coexpressed in Xenopus laevis oocytes, where we monitored protein surface expression, current amplitude, and activation kinetics. Densities of expressed M2R were assessed using a fluorescently labeled GIRK channel as a molecular ruler. We then incorporated our results, along with available kinetic data reported for the G-protein cycle and for GIRK1/2 activation, to generate a comprehensive mathematical model for the M2R-G-protein-GIRK1/2 signaling cascade. We find that, without assuming any irreversible interactions, our collision coupling kinetic model faithfully reproduces the rate of channel activation, the changes in agonist-evoked currents and the acceleration of channel activation by increased receptor densities.

Temporal Bias: Time-Encoded Dynamic GPCR Signaling

Evidence suggests that cells can time-encode signals for secure transport and perception of information, and it appears that this dynamic signaling is a common principle of nature to code information in time. G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling networks are no exception as their composition and signal transduction appear temporally flexible. In this review, we discuss the potential mechanisms by which GPCRs code biological information in time to create 'temporal bias.' We highlight dynamic signaling patterns from the second messenger to the receptor-ligand level and shed light on the dynamics of G-protein cycles, the kinetics of ligand-receptor interaction, and the occurrence of distinct signaling waves within the cell. A dynamic feature such as temporal bias adds to the complexity of GPCR signaling bias and gives rise to the question whether this trait could be exploited to gain control over time-encoded cell physiology.

Recently duplicated plant heterotrimeric Gα proteins with subtle biochemical differences influence specific outcomes of signal-response coupling

Heterotrimeric G-proteins, comprising Gα, Gβ, and Gγ subunits, regulate key signaling processes in eukaryotes. The Gα subunit determines the status of signaling by switching between inactive GDP-bound and active GTP-bound forms. Unlike animal systems, in which multiple Gα proteins with variable biochemical properties exist, plants have fewer, highly similar Gα subunits that have resulted from recent genome duplications. These proteins exhibit subtle differences in their GTP-binding, GDP/GTP-exchange, and GTP-hydrolysis activities, but the extent to which these differences contribute to affect plant signaling and development remains unknown. To evaluate this, we expressed native and engineered Gα proteins from soybean in an Arabidopsis Gα-null background and studied their effects on modulating a range of developmental and hormonal signaling phenotypes. Our results indicated that inherent biochemical differences in these highly similar Gα proteins are biologically relevant, and some proteins are more flexible than others in influencing the outcomes of specific signals. These observations suggest that alterations in the rate of the G-protein cycle itself may contribute to the specificity of response regulation in plants by affecting the duration of active signaling and/or by the formation of distinct protein-protein complexes. In species such as Arabidopsis having a single canonical Gα, this rate could be affected by regulatory proteins in the presence of specific signals, whereas in plants with multiple Gα proteins, an even more complex regulation may exist, which likely contributes to the specificity of signal-response coupling.

The binding of activated Gαq to phospholipase C-β exhibits anomalous affinity

Upon activation by the G_q family of Gα subunits, Gβγ subunits, and some Rho family GTPases, phospholipase C-β (PLC-β) isoforms hydrolyze phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate to the second messengers inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate and diacylglycerol. PLC-β isoforms also function as GTPase-activating proteins, potentiating G_q deactivation. To elucidate the mechanism of this mutual regulation, we measured the thermodynamics and kinetics of PLC-β3 binding to Gα_q FRET and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy, two physically distinct methods, both yielded K_d values of about 200 nm for PLC-β3-Gα_q binding. This K_d is 50-100 times greater than the EC₅₀ for Gα_q-mediated PLC-β3 activation and for the Gα_q GTPase-activating protein activity of PLC-β. The measured K_d was not altered either by the presence of phospholipid vesicles, phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate and Ca²⁺, or by the identity of the fluorescent labels. FRET-based kinetic measurements were also consistent with a K_d of 200 nm We determined that PLC-β3 hysteresis, whereby PLC-β3 remains active for some time following either Gα_q-PLC-β3 dissociation or PLC-β3-potentiated Gα_q deactivation, is not sufficient to explain the observed discrepancy between EC₅₀ and K_d These results indicate that the mechanism by which Gα_q and PLC-β3 mutually regulate each other is far more complex than a simple, two-state allosteric model and instead is probably kinetically determined.

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.

Invited review: Activation of G proteins by GTP and the mechanism of Gα-catalyzed GTP hydrolysis

This review addresses the regulatory consequences of the binding of GTP to the alpha subunits (Gα) of heterotrimeric G proteins, the reaction mechanism of GTP hydrolysis catalyzed by Gα and the means by which GTPase activating proteins (GAPs) stimulate the GTPase activity of Gα. The high energy of GTP binding is used to restrain and stabilize the conformation of the Gα switch segments, particularly switch II, to afford stable complementary to the surfaces of Gα effectors, while excluding interaction with Gβγ, the regulatory binding partner of GDP-bound Gα. Upon GTP hydrolysis, the energy of these conformational restraints is dissipated and the two switch segments, particularly switch II, become flexible and are able to adopt a conformation suitable for tight binding to Gβγ. Catalytic site pre-organization presents a significant activation energy barrier to Gα GTPase activity. The glutamine residue near the N-terminus of switch II (Glncat ) must adopt a conformation in which it orients and stabilizes the γ phosphate and the water nucleophile for an in-line attack. The transition state is probably loose with dissociative character; phosphoryl transfer may be concerted. The catalytic arginine in switch I (Argcat ), together with amide hydrogen bonds from the phosphate binding loop, stabilize charge at the β-γ bridge oxygen of the leaving group. GAPs that harbor "regulator of protein signaling" (RGS) domains, or structurally unrelated domains within G protein effectors that function as GAPs, accelerate catalysis by stabilizing the pre-transition state for Gα-catalyzed GTP hydrolysis, primarily by restraining Argcat and Glncat to their catalytic conformations. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Biopolymers 105: 449-462, 2016.

Decoding Gαq signaling

Gαq signals with phospholipase C-β (PLC-β) to modify behavior in response to an agonist-bound GPCR. While the fundamental steps which prime Gαq to interact with PLC-β have been identified, questions remain concerning signal strength with PLC-β and other effectors. Gαq is generally viewed to function as a simple ON and OFF switch for its effector, dependent on the binding of GTP or GDP. However, Gαq does not have a single effector, Gαq has many different effectors. Furthermore, select effectors also regulate Gαq activity. PLC-β is a lipase and a GTPase activating protein (GAP) selective for Gαq. The contribution of G protein regulating activity to signal amplitude remains unclear. The unique PLC-β coiled-coil domain is essential for maximum Gαq response, both lipase and GAP. Nonetheless, coiled-coil domain associations necessary to maximum response have not been revealed by the structural approach. This review discusses progress towards understanding the basis for signal strength with PLC-β and other effectors. Shared and effector-specific interactions have been identified. Finally, the evidence for allosteric regulation of lipase stimulation by protein kinase C, the membrane, phosphatidic acid, phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate and GPCR is explored. Endogenous allosteric regulators can suppress or enhance maximum lipase stimulation dependent on the PLC-β coiled-coil domain. A better understanding of allosteric modulation may therefore identify a wealth of new targets to regulate signal strength and behavior.

G Protein-Coupled Receptor Signaling Networks from a Systems Perspective

The signal-transduction network of a mammalian cell integrates internal and external cues to initiate adaptive responses. Among the cell-surface receptors are the G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), which have remarkable signal-integrating capabilities. Binding of extracellular signals stabilizes intracellular-domain conformations that selectively activate intracellular proteins. Hereby, multiple signaling routes are activated simultaneously to degrees that are signal-combination dependent. Systems-biology studies indicate that signaling networks have emergent processing capabilities that go far beyond those of single proteins. Such networks are spatiotemporally organized and capable of gradual, oscillatory, all-or-none, and subpopulation-generating responses. Protein-protein interactions, generating feedback and feedforward circuitry, are generally required for these spatiotemporal phenomena. Understanding of information processing by signaling networks therefore requires network theories in addition to biochemical and biophysical concepts. Here we review some of the key signaling systems behaviors that have been discovered recurrently across signaling networks. We emphasize the role of GPCRs, so far underappreciated receptors in systems-biology research.

The structure of dynamic GPCR signaling networks

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) stimulate signaling networks that control a variety of critical physiological processes. Static information on the map of interacting signaling molecules at the basis of many cellular processes exists, but little is known about the dynamic operation of these networks. Here we focus on two questions. First, Is the network architecture underlying GPCR-activated cellular processes unique in comparison with others such as transcriptional networks? We discuss how spatially localized GPCR signaling requires uniquely organized networks to execute polarized cell responses. Second, What approaches overcome challenges in deciphering spatiotemporally dynamic networks that govern cell behavior? We focus on recently developed microfluidic and optical approaches that allow GPCR signaling pathways to be triggered and perturbed with spatially and temporally variant input while simultaneously visualizing molecular and cellular responses. When integrated with mathematical modeling, these approaches can help identify design principles that govern cell responses to extracellular signals. We outline why optical approaches that allow the behavior of a selected cell to be orchestrated continually are particularly well suited for probing network organization in single cells.

Regulation of phospholipase C-β(1) GTPase-activating protein (GAP) function and relationship to G(q) efficacy

How cells regulate Gq efficacy (initiation and termination of Gq signaling) to effect response remains a central question in pharmacology and drug discovery. Phospholipase C-β1 (PLC-β1) is an effector and a GTPase activating protein (GAP) specific to Gαq. The physiological function of PLC-β1 GAP remains unclear and controversial. GAPs are generally thought to function in deactivation of Gq signaling. However, PLC-β1 GAP has also been shown to increase signaling efficiency through kinetic coupling with the ligand-activated GPCR. GPCRs function as guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEF) on the G protein activation cycle. This article sets forth a new hypothesis that could unify these conflicting paradigms as it pertains to physiological signaling and native levels of protein. It is proposed that the physiological function of PLC-β1 GAP is context-dependent and regulated by phosphatidic acid (PA). PA stimulates PLC-β1 GAP activity. In the absence of ligand, PLC-β1 GAP does indeed deactivate Gq signaling, limiting leaky activation to set the threshold for stimulation to sharpen signal kinetics. However in the presence of activating ligand, the increase in levels of PA would stimulate PLC-β1 GAP to kinetically couple with GPCR GEF to increase signaling efficiency. We found that PA-increased Gq efficiency is dependent on signaling via the unique PLC-β1 PA binding domain.

Modulation of the cAMP response by Gαi and Gβγ: a computational study of G protein signaling in immune cells

Cyclic AMP is important for the resolution of inflammation, as it promotes anti-inflammatory signaling in several immune cell lines. In this paper, we present an immune cell specific model of the cAMP signaling cascade, paying close attention to the specific isoforms of adenylyl cyclase (AC) and phosphodiesterase that control cAMP production and degradation, respectively, in these cells. The model describes the role that G protein subunits, including Gαs, Gαi, and Gβγ, have in regulating cAMP production. Previously, Gαi activation has been shown to increase the level of cAMP in certain immune cell types. This increase in cAMP is thought to be mediated by βγ subunits which are released upon Gα activation and can directly stimulate specific isoforms of AC. We conduct numerical experiments in order to explore the mechanisms through which Gαi activation can increase cAMP production. An important conclusion of our analysis is that the relative abundance of different G protein subunits is an essential determinant of the cAMP profile in immune cells. In particular, our model predicts that limited availability of βγ subunits may both (i) enable immune cells to link inflammatory Gαi signaling to anti-inflammatory cAMP production thereby creating a balanced immune response to stimulation with low concentrations of PGE2, and (ii) prohibit robust anti-inflammatory cAMP signaling in response to stimulation with high concentrations of PGE2.

Dynamic metabolic control of an ion channel

G-protein-coupled receptors mediate responses to external stimuli in various cell types. We are interested in the modulation of KCNQ2/3 potassium channels by the Gq-coupled M1 muscarinic (acetylcholine) receptor (M1R). Here, we describe development of a mathematical model that incorporates all known steps along the M1R signaling cascade and accurately reproduces the macroscopic behavior we observe when KCNQ2/3 currents are inhibited following M1R activation. Gq protein-coupled receptors of the plasma membrane activate phospholipase C (PLC) which cleaves the minor plasma membrane lipid phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PI(4,5)P2) into the second messengers diacylgycerol and inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate, leading to calcium release, protein kinase C (PKC) activation, and PI(4,5)P2 depletion. Combining optical and electrical techniques with knowledge of relative abundance of each signaling component has allowed us to develop a kinetic model and determine that (i) M1R activation and M1R/Gβ interaction are fast; (ii) Gαq/Gβ separation and Gαq/PLC interaction have intermediate time constants; (iii) the amount of activated PLC limits the rate of KCNQ2/3 suppression; (iv) weak PLC activation can elicit robust calcium signals without net PI(4,5)P2 depletion or KCNQ2/3 channel inhibition; and (v) depletion of PI(4,5)P2, and not calcium/CaM or PKC-mediated phosphorylation, closes KCNQ2/3 potassium channels, thereby increasing neuronal excitability.

Sugar-induced endocytosis of plant 7TM-RGS proteins

Plant cells use sugars mainly as a source or store of energy and carbon skeletons for anabolic reactions and for osmotic regulation. The perception of sugars and their responses are rather complex including the heterotrimeric G protein pathway and a seven-transmembrane RGS molecule. Previously, we found that endocytosis of the 7TM-RGS leads to sustained activation of the G protein pathway in the genetic model Arabidopsis. Here we show that other plants possess similar endocytosis systems of the 7TM-RGS proteins. A phosphorylation site essential for the endocytosis is well conserved in land plant 7TM-RGS proteins. In addition, conifer and tobacco 7TM-RGS proteins are internalized in response to sugar. These results indicate a universal mechanism to activate G signaling by endocytosis in plant cells that have 7TM-RGS proteins.

G protein co-signaling and challenges for translational research

The Gq-linked G protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and their signaling pathways are important clinical targets for the dementia of Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline with aging. Gq stimulates phospholipase C-β1 (PLC-β1) activity, increasing levels of inositol-1, 4, 5-trisphosphate (IP3) and diacylglycerol, to initiate mobilization of intracellular Ca2+ and activation of protein kinase C, respectively. While high concentrations of ligand typically evoke large sustained increases in cytosolic Ca2+ levels, it has long been appreciated that the dynamics of the Ca2+ increase are more complex and consistent with multiple levels of regulation. Physiologically relevant concentrations of Gq-ligands evoke rhythmic fluctuations or an oscillation in the level of cytosolic Ca2+. Downstream targets are tuned to respond to the frequency of the Ca2+ oscillations which in turn, reflect the oscillations in IP3 levels. Oscillatory behavior depends on the assembly of self-organizing interactions. The components that contribute to and regulate the Ca2+ oscillator have been unclear, precluding transfer of this fundamental knowledge from bench to bedside. Many GPCRs that signal with Gq also co-signal with G12. G protein co-signaling could therefore regulate the Ca2+ oscillator. This letter explores the potential relationship between Ca2+ oscillations, G protein co-signaling and cellular response in the context of our recent observations. We found that Gq efficacy is synergistic with phosphatidic acid, (PA), a signaling mediator generated downstream of activated G12 and RhoA. Regulation by PA depends on interaction with the unique PLC-β1 PA binding region. G protein co-signaling is therefore a mechanism for GPCRs to collectively assemble self-organizing interactions that regulate the Ca2+ oscillator.

Mammalian phospholipase C

Phospholipase C (PLC) converts phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP(2)) to inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP(3)) and diacylglycerol (DAG). DAG and IP(3) each control diverse cellular processes and are also substrates for synthesis of other important signaling molecules. PLC is thus central to many important interlocking regulatory networks. Mammals express six families of PLCs, each with both unique and overlapping controls over expression and subcellular distribution. Each PLC also responds acutely to its own spectrum of activators that includes heterotrimeric G protein subunits, protein tyrosine kinases, small G proteins, Ca(2+), and phospholipids. Mammalian PLCs are autoinhibited by a region in the catalytic TIM barrel domain that is the target of much of their acute regulation. In combination, the PLCs act as a signaling nexus that integrates numerous signaling inputs, critically governs PIP(2) levels, and regulates production of important second messengers to determine cell behavior over the millisecond to hour timescale.

RGS proteins maintain robustness of GPCR-GIRK coupling by selective stimulation of the G protein subunit Gαo

Termination of heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding protein (G protein) signaling downstream of activated G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) is accelerated by regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins, which act as guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase)-activating proteins (GAPs). Using a Xenopus oocyte expression system, we found that although RGS proteins had a negative effect of accelerating the kinetics of GPCR-coupled potassium ion (K+) channel (GIRK) deactivation, they also had positive effects of increasing the amplitudes and activation kinetics of neurotransmitter-evoked GIRK currents. The RGS box domain alone was sufficient to stimulate neurotransmitter-dependent activation of GIRK currents. Moreover, RGS4 mutants with compromised GAP activity augmented GPCR-GIRK coupling (as assessed by measurement of the GIRK current elicited by neurotransmitter). By accelerating G protein activation kinetics, RGS4 specifically stimulated Gα₀, which stimulated GPCR-GIRK coupling despite its GAP activity. Opposing actions of RGS proteins thus both stimulate and inhibit G proteins to modulate the amplitude and kinetics of neurotransmitter-induced GIRK currents, thereby distinguishing the responses to activation of different G protein isoforms.

RhoA co-ordinates with heterotrimeric G proteins to regulate efficacy

Heterotrimeric G proteins have a critical role in mediating signal transduction by ligand-stimulated GPCRs. While activation of heterotrimeric G proteins is known to proceed via the G protein guanine nucleotide cycle, there is much uncertainty regarding the process that determines efficacy, the extent of response across signaling pathways. Gα(GTP) can interact with multiple binding partners, including several effectors and regulators. Cross-talk by other receptor-signaling pathways can alter the response. It remains unclear whether G protein efficacy is regulated. This lack of clarity impairs our ability to predict and manipulate the pharmacological behavior of activated G proteins. This review will discuss emerging evidence that implicates monomeric RhoA in the process that regulates G(q) efficacy.

Regulators of G-protein signaling and their Gα substrates: promises and challenges in their use as drug discovery targets

Because G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) continue to represent excellent targets for the discovery and development of small-molecule therapeutics, it is posited that additional protein components of the signal transduction pathways emanating from activated GPCRs themselves are attractive as drug discovery targets. This review considers the drug discovery potential of two such components: members of the "regulators of G-protein signaling" (RGS protein) superfamily, as well as their substrates, the heterotrimeric G-protein α subunits. Highlighted are recent advances, stemming from mouse knockout studies and the use of "RGS-insensitivity" and fast-hydrolysis mutations to Gα, in our understanding of how RGS proteins selectively act in (patho)physiologic conditions controlled by GPCR signaling and how they act on the nucleotide cycling of heterotrimeric G-proteins in shaping the kinetics and sensitivity of GPCR signaling. Progress is documented regarding recent activities along the path to devising screening assays and chemical probes for the RGS protein target, not only in pursuits of inhibitors of RGS domain-mediated acceleration of Gα GTP hydrolysis but also to embrace the potential of finding allosteric activators of this RGS protein action. The review concludes in considering the Gα subunit itself as a drug target, as brought to focus by recent reports of activating mutations to GNAQ and GNA11 in ocular (uveal) melanoma. We consider the likelihood of several strategies for antagonizing the function of these oncogene alleles and their gene products, including the use of RGS proteins with Gα(q) selectivity.

Galpha(q) and phospholipase C-beta: turn on, turn off, and do it fast

Heterotrimeric G proteins and G protein-coupled receptors represent conserved protein families with origins in the prokaryotes, but the various G protein-regulated effectors are heterogeneous in structure and function. The effectors apparently evolved ways to listen to G proteins late in their evolutionary histories. The structure of a complex between the effector protein phospholipase C-β3 (PLC-β3) and its activator, Gα(q), suggests that several effectors independently evolved a structurally similar helix-turn-helix segment for G protein recognition. PLC-βs are also guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase)-activating proteins (GAPs) for the G(q) that activates them. In a second example of convergent evolution, the GAP activity of these proteins depends on a flexible asparagine-containing loop that resembles the GAP site on RGS proteins, another family of G protein GAPs. Together, these two sites are proposed to cooperate to enable fast binding to activated Gα(q), followed by fast deactivation. This cycle allows rapid sampling of the activation state of G(q)-coupled receptors while providing efficient signal transduction.

Theme and variations on kinetics of GPCR activation/deactivation

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) initiate intracellular signaling pathways in response to physiologically and medically important extracellular ligands such as peptide and large glycoprotein hormones, neurotransmitters, sensory stimuli (odorant and taste molecules, light), calcium, l-amino acids, and are the target of many clinical drugs. The conversion of these extracellular stimuli into intracellular signals involves sequential and reversible reactions that initially take place at the plasma membrane. These reactions are mediated not only by dynamic interactions between ligands, receptors and heterotrimeric G proteins, but also by conformational changes associated with the activation/deactivation process of each protein. This review discusses the kinetic characteristics and rate-limiting reactions engaged in signal propagation that are involved in systems as diverse as neurotransmitter and hormonal signaling, and that have been recorded in live cells by Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET) approaches.

Kinetic scaffolding mediated by a phospholipase C-beta and Gq signaling complex

Transmembrane signals initiated by a broad range of extracellular stimuli converge on nodes that regulate phospholipase C (PLC)-dependent inositol lipid hydrolysis for signal propagation. We describe how heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding proteins (G proteins) activate PLC-βs and in turn are deactivated by these downstream effectors. The 2.7-angstrom structure of PLC-β3 bound to activated Gα(q) reveals a conserved module found within PLC-βs and other effectors optimized for rapid engagement of activated G proteins. The active site of PLC-β3 in the complex is occluded by an intramolecular plug that is likely removed upon G protein-dependent anchoring and orientation of the lipase at membrane surfaces. A second domain of PLC-β3 subsequently accelerates guanosine triphosphate hydrolysis by Gα(q), causing the complex to dissociate and terminate signal propagation. Mutations within this domain dramatically delay signal termination in vitro and in vivo. Consequently, this work suggests a dynamic catch-and-release mechanism used to sharpen spatiotemporal signals mediated by diverse sensory inputs.

Kinetics of M1 muscarinic receptor and G protein signaling to phospholipase C in living cells

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediate responses to external stimuli in various cell types. Early events, such as the binding of ligand and G proteins to the receptor, nucleotide exchange (NX), and GTPase activity at the Galpha subunit, are common for many different GPCRs. For G(q)-coupled M(1) muscarinic (acetylcholine) receptors (M(1)Rs), we recently measured time courses of intermediate steps in the signaling cascade using Förster resonance energy transfer (FRET). The expression of FRET probes changes the density of signaling molecules. To provide a full quantitative description of M(1)R signaling that includes a simulation of kinetics in native (tsA201) cells, we now determine the density of FRET probes and construct a kinetic model of M(1)R signaling through G(q) to activation of phospholipase C (PLC). Downstream effects on the trace membrane lipid phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP(2)) and PIP(2)-dependent KCNQ2/3 current are considered in our companion paper in this issue (Falkenburger et al. 2010. J. Gen. Physiol. doi:10.1085/jgp.200910345). By calibrating their fluorescence intensity, we found that we selected transfected cells for our experiments with approximately 3,000 fluorescently labeled receptors, G proteins, or PLC molecules per microm(2) of plasma membrane. Endogenous levels are much lower, 1-40 per microm(2). Our kinetic model reproduces the time courses and concentration-response relationships measured by FRET and explains observed delays. It predicts affinities and rate constants that align well with literature values. In native tsA201 cells, much of the delay between ligand binding and PLC activation reflects slow binding of G proteins to receptors. With M(1)R and Gbeta FRET probes overexpressed, 10% of receptors have G proteins bound at rest, rising to 73% in the presence of agonist. In agreement with previous work, the model suggests that binding of PLC to Galpha(q) greatly speeds up NX and GTPase activity, and that PLC is maintained in the active state by cycles of rapid GTP hydrolysis and NX on Galpha(q) subunits bound to PLC.

Regulators of G-protein signaling accelerate GPCR signaling kinetics and govern sensitivity solely by accelerating GTPase activity

G-protein heterotrimers, composed of a guanine nucleotide-binding G alpha subunit and an obligate G betagamma dimer, regulate signal transduction pathways by cycling between GDP- and GTP-bound states. Signal deactivation is achieved by G alpha-mediated GTP hydrolysis (GTPase activity) which is enhanced by the GTPase-accelerating protein (GAP) activity of "regulator of G-protein signaling" (RGS) proteins. In a cellular context, RGS proteins have also been shown to speed up the onset of signaling, and to accelerate deactivation without changing amplitude or sensitivity of the signal. This latter paradoxical activity has been variably attributed to GAP/enzymatic or non-GAP/scaffolding functions of these proteins. Here, we validated and exploited a G alpha switch-region point mutation, known to engender increased GTPase activity, to mimic in cis the GAP function of RGS proteins. While the transition-state, GDP x AlF(4)(-)-bound conformation of the G202A mutant was found to be nearly identical to wild-type, G alpha(i1)(G202A) x GDP assumed a divergent conformation more closely resembling the GDP x AlF(4)(-)-bound state. When placed within Saccharomyces cerevisiae G alpha subunit Gpa1, the fast-hydrolysis mutation restored appropriate dose-response behaviors to pheromone signaling in the absence of RGS-mediated GAP activity. A bioluminescence resonance energy transfer (BRET) readout of heterotrimer activation with high temporal resolution revealed that fast intrinsic GTPase activity could recapitulate in cis the kinetic sharpening (increased onset and deactivation rates) and blunting of sensitivity also engendered by RGS protein action in trans. Thus G alpha-directed GAP activity, the first biochemical function ascribed to RGS proteins, is sufficient to explain the activation kinetics and agonist sensitivity observed from G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) signaling in a cellular context.

Fluorescence changes reveal kinetic steps of muscarinic receptor-mediated modulation of phosphoinositides and Kv7.2/7.3 K+ channels

G protein–coupled receptors initiate signaling cascades. M₁ muscarinic receptor (M₁R) activation couples through Gα_q to stimulate phospholipase C (PLC), which cleaves phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP₂). Depletion of PIP₂ closes PIP₂-requiring Kv7.2/7.3 potassium channels (M current), thereby increasing neuronal excitability. This modulation of M current is relatively slow (6.4 s to reach within 1/e of the steady-state value). To identify the rate-limiting steps, we investigated the kinetics of each step using pairwise optical interactions likely to represent fluorescence resonance energy transfer for M₁R activation, M₁R/Gβ interaction, Gα_q/Gβ separation, Gα_q/PLC interaction, and PIP₂ hydrolysis. Electrophysiology was used to monitor channel closure. Time constants for M₁R activation (<100 ms) and M₁R/Gβ interaction (200 ms) are both fast, suggesting that neither of them is rate limiting during muscarinic suppression of M current. Gα_q/Gβ separation and Gα_q/PLC interaction have intermediate 1/e times (2.9 and 1.7 s, respectively), and PIP₂ hydrolysis (6.7 s) occurs on the timescale of M current suppression. Overexpression of PLC accelerates the rate of M current suppression threefold (to 2.0 s) to become nearly contemporaneous with Gα_q/PLC interaction. Evidently, channel release of PIP₂ and closure are rapid, and the availability of active PLC limits the rate of M current suppression.

Phosphatidic acid potentiates G(alpha)q stimulation of phospholipase C-beta1 signaling

Phosphatidic acid (PA) is interactive with G(alpha)q-linked agonists to stimulate GPCR signaling via phospholipase C-beta(1) (PLC-beta(1)). Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) increases cellular levels of PA and phospholipase D activity (PLD). This study evaluated whether PMA can stimulate PLC-beta(1) activity via PA, independent of GPCR input in transfected COS 7 cells. PMA alone had little effect on PLC activity in cells co-transfected with PLC-beta(1) and G(alpha)q. Activated G(alpha)q, induced by co-transfecting muscarinic cholinergic receptor (m1R), was necessary for stimulation of PLC-beta(1) activity by PMA. Stimulation by PMA was dependent on the PA-regulatory motif of PLC-beta(1) implicating PA in this mechanism. PLD1 knockdown by antisense decreased responsiveness of PLC-beta(1) to both PMA and carbachol. PA alone thus has little effect on PLC-beta(1) activity, but PA and PLD1 synergize with activated G(alpha)q to stimulate PLC-beta(1) signaling. Coordinate interaction with activated G(alpha)q may serve as an important mechanism to fine tune response to ligands while preventing spurious initiation of PLC-beta signaling by PA in cells.

Lipid raft-mediated regulation of G-protein coupled receptor signaling by ligands which influence receptor dimerization: a computational study

G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the largest family of cell surface receptors; they activate heterotrimeric G-proteins in response to ligand stimulation. Although many GPCRs have been shown to form homo- and/or heterodimers on the cell membrane, the purpose of this dimerization is not known. Recent research has shown that receptor dimerization may have a role in organization of receptors on the cell surface. In addition, microdomains on the cell membrane termed lipid rafts have been shown to play a role in GPCR localization. Using a combination of stochastic (Monte Carlo) and deterministic modeling, we propose a novel mechanism for lipid raft partitioning of GPCRs based on reversible dimerization of receptors and then demonstrate that such localization can affect GPCR signaling. Modeling results are consistent with a variety of experimental data indicating that lipid rafts have a role in amplification or attenuation of G-protein signaling. Thus our work suggests a new mechanism by which dimerization-inducing or inhibiting characteristics of ligands can influence GPCR signaling by controlling receptor organization on the cell membrane.

Dual positive and negative regulation of GPCR signaling by GTP hydrolysis

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) regulate a variety of intracellular pathways through their ability to promote the binding of GTP to heterotrimeric G proteins. Regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins increases the intrinsic GTPase activity of Galpha-subunits and are widely regarded as negative regulators of G protein signaling. Using yeast we demonstrate that GTP hydrolysis is not only required for desensitization, but is essential for achieving a high maximal (saturated level) response. Thus RGS-mediated GTP hydrolysis acts as both a negative (low stimulation) and positive (high stimulation) regulator of signaling. To account for this we generated a new kinetic model of the G protein cycle where Galpha(GTP) enters an inactive GTP-bound state following effector activation. Furthermore, in vivo and in silico experimentation demonstrates that maximum signaling output first increases and then decreases with RGS concentration. This unimodal, non-monotone dependence on RGS concentration is novel. Analysis of the kinetic model has revealed a dynamic network motif that shows precisely how inclusion of the inactive GTP-bound state for the Galpha produces this unimodal relationship.

Coordinating speed and amplitude in G-protein signaling

G-protein-mediated signaling is intrinsically kinetic. Signal output at steady state is a balance of the rates of GTP binding, which causes activation, and of GTP hydrolysis, which terminates activation. This GTPase catalytic cycle is regulated by receptors, which accelerate GTP binding, and GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs), which accelerate hydrolysis. Receptors and GAPs similarly control the rates of signal initiation and termination. To allow independent control of signal amplitude and of the rates of turning the signal on and off, the activities of receptors and GAPs must be coordinated. Here, the principles of such coordination and the mechanisms by which it is achieved are discussed.