![]()
|
|
||||||||
J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 275, Issue 24, 18520-18526, June 16, 2000
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From the Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, Washington
University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110
Received for publication, January 27, 2000, and in revised form, March 27, 2000
RGS4, a mammalian GTPase-activating protein for G
protein Regulators of G protein signaling (RGS
proteins)1 are a recently
appreciated family of proteins that participate as negative regulators
or effectors in G protein pathways (reviewed in Refs. 1 and 2). RGS
proteins catalytically accelerate GTP hydrolysis on More than 20 mammalian RGS proteins have been identified to date (1).
All RGS family members share sequence similarity that extends over
approximately 120 amino acids. In many RGS proteins, this so-called
"RGS box" or core domain is sufficient to bind G protein One way in which these RGS flanking regions can modulate protein
activity is by determining subcellular localization. For several RGS
proteins, regions near the N terminus are responsible for targeting the
proteins to particular cellular locations. RGS-GAIP and RGSZ1 contain
cysteine string motifs near their N termini. These domains contain
multiple sites for palmitoylation, which is presumed to promote
association with membranes (11, 12). Many other RGS proteins contain
protein-protein interaction domains that may determine their
localization (1). We demonstrated previously that a domain in RGS4
consisting of the first 33 amino acids of the protein is necessary for
biological activity and is responsible for targeting RGS4 to the plasma
membrane (10). RGS5 and RGS16 share significant sequence homology in
this region, suggesting that this region codes for a functionally
important domain. Indeed, a recent study has revealed that the
corresponding region of RGS16 is also required for membrane association
and biological activity (13). Wilkie and co-workers (14) have shown
that the N-terminal domain of RGS4 mediates receptor selectivity, affirming its functional importance.
RGS4 and RGS16 are palmitoylated at cysteine residues within the
conserved N-terminal domain. However, mutation of the N-terminal cysteines in RGS4 or RGS16 does not interfere with membrane association of the proteins (10, 13, 15). This suggests that other structural features of the N-terminal domain are mediating membrane attachment. We
proposed a model based on secondary structure predictions that formation of an amphipathic In this study, we demonstrate using model membranes that RGS4 has an
intrinsic affinity for anionic lipids that is dependent upon its
N-terminal 33-amino acid domain. We show that a peptide corresponding
to this domain adopts an Plasmids and Mutagenesis Methods--
RGS4-GFP, Production and Purification of Recombinant
Proteins--
H6TEV-RGS4-pQE60 constructs were transformed
into the bacterial strain JM109. 1-2 L of transformed bacteria were
grown to A600 of 0.5-0.8 and induced at
30 °C with 500 µM
isopropyl-1-thio- GAP Activity of Recombinant RGS4 Proteins--
GAP activity of
WT and mutant RGS4 protein preparations was determined using a solution
based single-turnover GTP hydrolysis assay modified from Linder
et al. (20). Recombinant myristoylated Go Preparation of Sucrose-loaded Phospholipid Vesicles for Protein
Binding--
Vesicles were prepared using an adaptation of previously
described methods (21-23). Lipids (3 mg) (Avanti Polar Lipids) and 1 µCi of [3H]phosphatidylcholine tracer (NEN Life Science
Products) were lyophilized and suspended in 400 µl of 10 mM MOPS, pH 7.4, 0.1 mM EGTA, 170 mM sucrose, 1 mM DTT (buffer B). The suspension
was sonicated briefly to break up aggregates and subjected to five cycles of freeze/thaw using liquid nitrogen and a 37 °C bath. The
mixture was extruded through two 100-nm pore polycarbonate membranes
using the LiposoFast Basic and Stabilizer (Avestin, Inc.) (15-19
passes). The vesicles were diluted 5-fold in buffer C (10 mM MOPS, pH 7.4, 100 mM KCl, 0.1 mM
EGTA), incubated for 15 min at room temperature, and collected by
centrifugation at 100,000 × g for 1 h at
22 °C. The pellet containing sucrose-loaded vesicles was suspended
in 100 µl of buffer C. The lipid concentration of the vesicles was
calculated based on the recovery of
[3H]phosphatidylcholine in the vesicle pellet.
Assay for Binding of Recombinant RGS4 Proteins to Sucrose-loaded
Phospholipid Vesicles--
Recombinant protein (0.2 µM)
and lipid vesicles (1 mM) were incubated in 100 µl of
buffer C for 15 min at room temperature. The reaction was subjected to
centrifugation at 100,000 × g for 1 h at
22 °C. The supernatant (90 µl, 90% of the total) was removed, and
the pellet was suspended in 90 µl of buffer C. For immunoblots, both
fractions were solubilized overnight in SDS sample buffer. Samples were
resolved by SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (13% gel) and
transferred to nitrocellulose (Micron Separations Inc.). After
incubation in blocking buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8, 2 mM CaCl2, 80 mM NaCl, 5% nonfat
dry milk, 0.2% (v/v) Nonidet P-40, and 0.02% sodium azide) for 30 min, the blot was probed with the polyclonal antiserum WU872 (1:1000 in
Tris-buffered saline containing 0.1% Tween-20) for 1 h; WU872 was
generated against a peptide (NH2-SFKLKSEFSEENIEFWLAC-COOH)
derived from the core domain of RGS1 and is cross-reactive with the
core domains of RGS4 and other RGS proteins. Immunoreactive proteins
were detected by incubation with horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat
anti-rabbit (Cappel) and visualized by Supersignal Chemiluminescent
Substrate (Pierce). For dot-blot analysis, vesicles were added to the
supernatant fraction equivalent to the amount added to the initial
reaction so that both fractions had the same lipid composition. An
aliquot (25 µl) of each fraction was spotted in duplicate onto
nitrocellulose using a dot-blot vacuum manifold. Each well was washed
once with 100 µl of buffer C. The nitrocellulose membrane was
incubated in blocking buffer for 30 min, followed by a 1-h incubation
with antiserum WU872. After washing with blocking buffer, the
nitrocellulose was incubated for 1 h with
125I-conjugated goat anti-rabbit antibody (ICN). After
washing, the nitrocellulose was exposed to a phosphorimaging screen for
12-24 h. The image was scanned using a Molecular Dynamics
PhosphorImager, and the images were processed using ImageQuant software.
Binding of Recombinant RGS4 Proteins to Bovine Brain
Membranes--
Bovine brain membranes were prepared as described (24).
Recombinant protein (0.4 µM) and bovine brain membranes
(200 µg) were incubated in TED (20 mM Tris, pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 1 mM DTT) for 1 h at 4 °C. The
reaction was loaded at the bottom of a three-step sucrose gradient
(1.4, 1.2, and 0.5 M) and centrifuged in a TLS-55 rotor
(Beckman) at 35,000 rpm for 1 h at 4 °C. The membranes floated up to form a band at the 1.2-0.5 M interface. The membrane
band (pellet) and the layers below the band were collected (soluble fraction). The membranes were diluted 5-fold in TED and collected by
centrifugation at 200,000 × g in a TL-100 rotor
(Beckman). The soluble fraction was precipitated with 4 volumes of
methanol at Peptide Synthesis--
Peptides corresponding to the first 31 amino acids of WT and mutant RGS4 were synthesized and purified by
reverse phase high pressure liquid chromatography (BioMolecules
Midwest). Residues 32 and 33 were excluded from the peptides to
simplify the synthesis. The molecular weights of the peptides were
determined by electrospray mass spectrometry for WT (3376), K17A/R22A
(3234), R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A (3091), and L23Q/L26Q/L27Q (3422) peptides.
These values corresponded to the predicted molecular weights of the
sequences. The peptides were stored as a solid at Preparation of Lipid Vesicles for Circular
Dichroism--
1,2-Dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine
(DPPC) and
1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-[phospho-rac-(1-glycerol)]
(DPPG) were purchased from Avanti Polar Lipids, Inc. (Alabaster, AL)
and stored in chloroform stocks under argon at Circular Dichroism Measurements--
Far UV CD spectra were
taken on a Jasco J600 Spectropolarimeter and recorded on a Dell 486D/50
personal computer for data processing. Spectra were recorded from 250 to 190 nm in 0.4-nm steps at 50 nm/min, with five spectra being
averaged together. A 1-mm-path length quartz cell was used with the
instrument at ambient temperature. For measurements, peptide and
liposome stocks were diluted in 20 mM sodium phosphate, pH
7.0, to final concentrations of 30 µM and 4 mM, respectively (16, 25). Background spectra of lipid
vesicles alone gave a minimal signal and were subtracted from peptide
spectra. Final data are expressed as mean residue molar ellipticity
(deg cm2/dmol). The percentage of Yeast Strains, Media, and Pheromone Response Assays--
The
yeast strain used for microscopy was SWY518 (Mata
ura3-1 his3-11, 15 trp1-1 leu2-3, 112 can1) (28) and for
pheromone response assay was BC180 (MATa leu2-3, 112 ura3-52 his3 RGS4 Binds to Membranes by Direct Interaction of the N-terminal 33 Amino Acids with Anionic Lipids--
Previously we demonstrated that
when expressed in yeast, RGS4 requires its N-terminal domain for
targeting to the plasma membrane. Although RGS4 is palmitoylated at
cysteine residues in the N-terminal domain, membrane association is
independent of the post-translational modification (10). Therefore, to
determine whether the association of RGS4 with membranes occurs via
direct lipid-protein interactions, we examined the ability of RGS4 to
bind to chemically defined sucrose-loaded lipid vesicles. RGS4 and the
N-terminal deletion mutant,
To determine whether our artificial liposomes adequately model cellular
membranes, we examined the binding of recombinant RGS4 to bovine brain
membranes. Greater than 50% of WT RGS4 bound to membranes, whereas
none of the N-terminal deletion mutant bound (Fig. 2B).
Thus, qualitatively it appears that our observations of RGS4
association with liposomes are representative of its interactions with
biological membranes.
The N-terminal 31 Amino Acids of RGS4 Form an Point Mutations in the N-terminal Domain of RGS4 That Disrupt
Either the Positively Charged Face or the Hydrophobic Face of the
As we demonstrated previously (10), WT RGS4-GFP was localized at the
plasma membrane in yeast, whereas GFP alone was cytoplasmic (Fig. 4).
Yeast expressing WT RGS4-GFP showed a small halo as compared with GFP,
indicating that heterologous expression of an RGS protein can function
to turn off the pheromone response pathway.
We constructed two point mutants in which positively charged residues
on the hydrophilic face of the helix were changed to alanine. We
predicted that neutralization of the charge on these residues would
disrupt the interaction with anionic phospholipid head groups at the
face of the plasma membrane. As shown in Fig. 4, K17A/R22A RGS4-GFP was
localized in the cytoplasm and was partially compromised in function in
the halo assay. Mutation of two additional positively charged residues
(R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A RGS4-GFP) resulted in a complete abrogation of
localization and function. These data point to the importance of
electrostatic interactions in mediating membrane association in
vivo.
To examine the role of the hydrophobic face of the helix in plasma
membrane localization, we replaced each of 3 leucine residues lying
along this face with glutamines (L23Q/L26Q/L27Q RGS4-GFP). These
substitutions changed hydrophobic to polar residues and were predicted
to disrupt hydrophobic interactions of the helix with the plasma
membrane. This mutant yielded a protein that was predominantly
cytoplasmic when expressed in yeast and nonfunctional in the halo
assay. Together, these results indicate that both positively charged
and hydrophobic amino acids in the N-terminal region of RGS4 are
necessary for its proper targeting to the plasma membrane and function
in yeast.
Point Mutations in the N-terminal Domain Disrupt RGS4 Binding to
Anionic Phospholipid Vesicles--
To determine how mutations in the
N-terminal domain affect the properties of RGS4 in vitro, we
purified recombinant, untagged WT RGS4 and the mutant constructs
The ability of these proteins to bind to sucrose-loaded vesicles
containing DPPG and liver PC was studied using a dot-blot version of
the vesicle binding assay. This method simplified the analysis of the
large number of samples. DPPG was substituted for PS to permit
comparison of the results of protein binding to vesicles with the CD
spectra of the corresponding peptides (see Fig. 7). The results of
three independent experiments using vesicles containing DPPG:PC 40:60
and 20:80 are shown in Fig. 6. When
incubated with vesicles containing 20% DPPG, WT RGS4 bound more
efficiently than did
We measured the ability of the mutant proteins to bind to
sucrose-loaded vesicles containing DPPG and liver PC in ratios of 40:60
and 20:80 DPPG:PC. Proteins harboring mutations in the N-terminal domain behaved similarly to WT in vesicles containing 40% DPPG: 87 ± 7% for K17A/R22A, 77 ± 8% for R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A,
and 89 ± 6% for L23Q/L26Q/L27Q. However, the mutants displayed
deficits in membrane binding when assayed in vesicles containing 20%
DPPG. The quadruple charge mutant and triple leucine mutant bound these vesicles 31 ± 3 and 30 ± 10%, respectively. Binding of the
K17/R22A mutant to these vesicles was intermediate (53 ± 3%).
These results are consistent with our findings in yeast and suggest
that the N-terminal domain facilitates binding to anionic lipid
membranes through both electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions.
The Previous work demonstrated that the N-terminal domain of RGS4 is
essential for its localization at the plasma membrane and its
biological activity in yeast (10). We proposed a model that the
mechanism of RGS4 membrane attachment is through the formation of an
amphipathic Membrane association through amphipathic A precedent for signal-dependent cycling between the
cytoplasm and the plasma membrane has been observed for RGS3.
Agonist-stimulated translocation of RGS3 appears to be mediated by a
dual mechanism involving RGS core domain binding to
G The recruitment of RGS4 to membranes in mammalian cells may rely on the
activation of specific receptors. Wilkie and co-workers (34)
demonstrated that within a single cell type, different RGS proteins
respond selectively to different receptors that activate the same G
protein. Interestingly, receptor selectivity is dependent upon the
N-terminal domain of RGS4, suggesting that RGS4 may interact with
signaling pathways at the cell surface through core domain interactions
with G Our study demonstrates that RGS4 has an intrinsic affinity for
membranes in vitro that is independent of protein
interactions. If this holds in vivo, how is the cytoplasmic
distribution of RGS4 in mammalian cells maintained? One possible
mechanism is through association with unknown cytoplasmic proteins that
bind to the N-terminal domain and prevent it from interacting with membranes. Alternatively, RGS4 could adopt a conformation in the cytoplasm that masks its N-terminal domain. Both mechanisms could be
regulated in a signal-dependent manner that results in RGS4 plasma membrane recruitment. A protein that binds to the C terminus of
RGS-GAIP through a PDZ domain has been identified. It is localized to
both the cytoplasm and vesicle membranes and may serve as a regulator
of GAIP subcellular distribution (35). A similar protein could exist
for RGS4 to either sequester it in the cytoplasm in an inactive state
or to serve as a chaperone, directing it to the membrane when the
appropriate signaling pathway is activated. Lin and co-workers (13)
have also suggested the existence of a membrane-bound recruitment
factor that interacts with the membrane targeting domain of RGS16.
Subcellular targeting is clearly an important mechanism for regulating
the function of RGS4 and other RGS proteins in vivo.
Understanding this complex regulation will be essential for defining
the physiological role of RGS4.
We thank Mark Crankshaw and Greg Grant of the
Protein and Nucleic Acid Facility of the Washington University School
of Medicine for assistance with peptide synthesis and CD spectroscopy,
David Cistola for advice on CD spectroscopy, and Monica Antoun and
Wendy K. Greentree for excellent technical support.
*
This work was supported by the Monsanto-Searle/Washington
University Biomedical Research Program and United States Public Health
Service Grant GM51466.The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. The article
must therefore be hereby marked
"advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section
1734 solely to indicate this fact.
§
Supported by National Institutes of Health Training Grant T32GM07067.
¶
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Cell
Biology and Physiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., Box 8228, St. Louis, MO 63110. Tel.: 314-362-6040; Fax:
314-362-7463; E-mail: mlinder@cellbio.wustl.edu.
Published, JBC Papers in Press, April 10, 2000, DOI 10.1074/jbc.M000618200
2
L. S. Bernstein and M. E. Linder,
unpublished results.
3
S. Srinivasa and K. Blumer, personal communication.
The abbreviations used are:
RGS, regulator of G
protein signaling;
DPPC, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine;
DPPG, 1,2-dipalmitoyl-sn-glycero-3-[phospho-rac-(1-glycerol)];
PC, liver phosphatidylcholine;
PS, brain phosphatidylserine;
GFP, green
fluorescent protein;
DTT, dithiothreitol;
MOPS, 3-[N-morpholino]propanesulfonic acid;
WT, wild type;
GAP, GTPase-activating protein.
RGS4 Binds to Membranes through an Amphipathic
-Helix*
,
,
![]()
ABSTRACT
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
subunits, requires its N-terminal 33 amino acids for plasma
membrane localization and biological activity (Srinivasa, S. P.,
Bernstein, L. S., Blumer, K. J., and Linder, M. E. (1998) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 95, 5584-5589).
In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the N-terminal domain
mediates membrane binding by forming an amphipathic
-helix. RGS4
bound to liposomes containing anionic phospholipids in a manner
dependent on the first 33 amino acids. Circular dichroism spectroscopy
of a peptide corresponding to amino acids 1-31 of RGS4 revealed that
the peptide adopted an
-helical conformation in the presence of
anionic phospholipids. Point mutations that either neutralized positive
charges on the hydrophilic face or substituted polar residues on the
hydrophobic face of the model helix disrupted plasma membrane targeting
and biological activity of RGS4 expressed in yeast. Recombinant mutant proteins were active as GTPase-activating proteins in solution but
exhibited diminished binding to anionic liposomes. Peptides corresponding to mutants with the most pronounced phenotypes were also
defective in forming an
-helix as measured by circular dichroism spectroscopy. These results support a model for direct interaction of
RGS4 with membranes through hydrophobic and electrostatic interactions of an N-terminal
-helix.
![]()
INTRODUCTION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
subunits,
resulting in faster termination of G protein signaling. The GAP
activity of RGS proteins may account for discrepancies between the
measured intrinsic rates of GTP hydrolysis of the
subunit and the
deactivation rate of physiological effectors. In addition to their
functions as GAPs, some RGS proteins may also regulate G protein
pathways by serving as effector antagonists (3, 4). As new RGS family
members are identified and characterized, it has become clear that RGS
proteins can act as effectors, as well as inhibitors, of G protein
pathways (5).
subunits and catalyze GTPase activity in vitro (6-9). However in a cellular context, regions outside the RGS domain are
necessary for biological activity of the protein (8, 10). Thus,
important regulatory information is likely to be contained within these
highly divergent flanking regions of RGS proteins.
-helix within the N-terminal domain is
responsible for membrane targeting (10). When modeled as an
-helical
wheel, this domain is an amphipathic
-helix with hydrophobic
residues, including the two palmitoylated cysteines, lying on one face
of the helix and positively charged hydrophilic residues on the
opposing face (Fig. 1). Basic residues
aligned on the hydrophilic face of the helix could associate with the head groups of anionic phospholipids of the membrane. Additionally, the
nonpolar residues and the palmitate molecules on the cysteine residues
may insert partially into the lipid bilayer of the membrane, yielding
hydrophobic interactions with the lipid tails in the inner surface of
the membrane. The helix is not necessarily continuous throughout the
domain. At least two other proteins, CTP:phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase and prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthases 1 and
2, rely on amphipathic
-helices for mediating their associations with membranes (16-18). Lin and co-workers (13) have modeled residues
12-30 of RGS16 as an amphipathic helix. Mutations that disrupt
hydrophobic residues of the nonpolar face of the helix and positively
charged side chains along the polar/nonpolar interface of the helix
prevent plasma membrane localization of RGS16, suggesting that
amphipathic features of RGS16 are required for membrane
association.

View larger version (35K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 1.
-Helical wheel model for the
N-terminal 33-amino acid domain of RGS4. The hydrophobic residues
(black) may interact with phospholipid tails inside the
membrane bilayer. Basic residues (white) along the top of the helix may
electrostatically interact with anionic phospholipid head groups on the
membrane surface. Palmitoylated cysteines (gray) reside on
the hydrophobic face.
-helical conformation in the presence of
anionic phospholipids. We further demonstrate that both hydrophobic and
basic amino acids contribute to the propensity of the domain to form an
-helix. These same residues are required for membrane binding
in vivo and in vitro and for biological activity.
These results support a model in which an amphipathic
-helix within
the N-terminal 33-amino acids mediates membrane association of RGS4 and
its relatives RGS5 and RGS16.
![]()
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1-33
RGS4-GFP, and GFP were expressed in yeast from a constitutive ADH
promoter in pVT102U as described previously (10). Wild type (WT)
RGS4-GFP was subcloned as a BamHI-XhoI fragment
into pBluescript for construction of the point mutants. K17A/R22A,
R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A, and L23Q/L26Q/L27Q were made using the Quikchange
mutagenesis kit (Stratagene). Mutant RGS4-GFP constructs were subcloned
into pVT102U for expression in yeast for microscopy. For expression
from a low copy plasmid in yeast, the ADH promoter, RGS4-GFP coding
sequence, and ADH1 3' region from pVT102U were subcloned as a
SphI fragment into the SphI site of YCp50. For expression of RGS4 in Escherichia coli, WT RGS4 was
amplified by polymerase chain reaction as a
NcoI-SmaI fragment and subcloned into
H6TEVpQE60 (19). This strategy required the addition of an
alanine residue following the initial methionine of RGS4 to complete
the NcoI site. For subcloning of the mutant RGS4 clones, a
modified H6TEVpQE60 vector was created using
His6pQE60 (19) as a template. A double stranded
oligonucleotide encoding the TEV protease site (ENLYFQG) and
BamHI site and SpeI restriction sites was ligated
with H6pQE60 digested with NcoI and
HinDIII. The sequences of the oligonucleotides were
5'-CATGGCTGAGAATCTTTATTTTCAGGGATCCTAGACTAGTTAATAACCCGGGTAATA-3' and 5'-AGCTTATTACCCGGGTTATTAACTAGTCTAGGATCCCTGAAAATAAAGATTCTCAGC-3'. The RGS4 mutants were then subcloned from RGS4-GFP-pBS as
BamHI-XbaI fragments, removing the GFP tag and
allowing ligation into the BamHI and SpeI sites
of the new vector to create H6TEV-RGS4-pQE60. As an
artifact of this subcloning, restriction sites contributed extra
nucleotides at both ends of the RGS4 cloning sequence. After cleavage
with TEV, WT RGS4 had an additional two amino acids (GA) at the N
terminus. Mutant RGS4 proteins had an additional four amino acids at
the N terminus (GSGT) and two amino acids at the C terminus (SS). The
integrity of all RGS4 constructs was verified by DNA sequence analysis
(Washington University Protein and Nucleic Acid Laboratory).
-D-galactopyranoside. Bacterial pellets
were lysed in 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 8, containing 50 mM KCl, 10 mM
-mercaptoethanol, and 2 mg/ml aprotinin by freeze-thaw and
sonication. His6-TEV-RGS4 proteins were purified by
chromatography on Ni2+-nitrilotriacetic acid agarose beads
(Qiagen). The proteins were eluted with 100-250 mM
imidazole in 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.6, 50 mM
NaCl, and 2.5 mM DTT. Peak fractions were dialyzed against 20 mM sodium phosphate buffer, pH 7.2, containing 150 mM NaCl and 10 mM
-mercaptoethanol
(NaPi buffer). Purified protein (0.5-2 mg) was digested
with His-tagged TEV protease (Life Technologies, Inc.) according to the
manufacturer's instructions. His-tagged TEV protease and uncleaved
RGS4 were separated from cleaved RGS4 by
Ni2+-nitrilotriacetic acid agarose chromatography. Cleaved
RGS4 was collected in the flow-through and in sequential washes with
NaPi buffer containing 0, 5, and 20 mM
imidazole. Protein was dialyzed against HEDG buffer (20 mM
Hepes, pH 8, 1 mM EDTA, 2 mM DTT, 10% glycerol) and concentrated to 0.3-2.3 mg/ml.
(200 nM) was incubated with 1 µM
[
-32P]GTP (10,000 cpm/pmol) (NEN Life Science
Products) in 50 mM NaHepes, pH 8.0, 5 mM EDTA,
1 mM DTT, and 0.05% Lubrol for 20 min at 25 °C then
returned to 4 °C. GTP, MgSO4 and RGS4 were added to
final concentrations of 150 µM, 15 mM and 20 nM, respectively, to initiate GTP hydrolysis. Aliquots (50 µl) were taken at 15-s intervals for the first minute and then every
minute for 5 min. Samples were processed as described (20).
20 °C for 1 h and then collected by
centrifugation in a microcentrifuge. Both membrane and soluble
fractions were suspended in SDS sample buffer and subjected to
immunoblot analysis as above.
20 °C in a
dessicator. A stock solution for each peptide was made by solubilizing
~15 mg of solid peptide in 1 ml of double distilled water except the
K17A/R22A peptide (15 mg/10 ml of water). The concentration of each
peptide stock solution was determined by amino acid analysis. Stock
solutions were aliquoted, stored at
20 °C, and thawed only once.
80 °C. Small
unilamellar liposomes were prepared by a method modified from Johnson
and Cornell (25). Lipids from chloroform stocks were mixed in small glass vials and dried by nitrogen evaporation followed by high vacuum
for a minimum of 1 h. The lipids were hydrated in 20 mM sodium phosphate, pH 7.0, to a lipid concentration of 20 mM. The suspension was sonicated in a bath sonicator
(Laboratory Supply Co.) until the solution cleared. The sonicated
solution was centrifuged at 1500 × g for 5 min in a
Beckman TL-100 Ultracentrifuge to remove debris and multilamellar
vesicles. The small unilamellar vesicles in the supernatant were used
for CD spectroscopy the same day as prepared. Liposomes were examined
by high performance thin layer chromatography (26) to monitor the ratio
of lipids.
-helix was estimated
from the molar ellipticity at 222 nm (
222) using the
equation fh = (
222/
h222
) + (i
/N) where fh is the
fraction in
-helical form,
222 is the mean residue
molar ellipticity at 222 nm,
h222
is the molar
ellipticity at 222 nm for an infinitely long
-helix (
39,500 deg
cm2/dmol), i is number of helices (assumed to be
one),
is a wavelength specific constant (2.6 at 222 nm), and
N is the number of residues in the peptide (31 residues)
(16, 27).
1 ade2-1 sst2-
2) (9).
Yeast cells were grown and pheromone response assays were performed as
described previously (10).
![]()
RESULTS
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1-33, were expressed as recombinant
proteins with a cleavable hexahistidine tag and purified by nickel
chelate chromatography. The tag was removed by cleavage with TEV
protease, yielding the purified protein preparations shown in Fig. 5.
Proteins were incubated with synthetic sucrose-loaded liposomes
containing 33% brain phosphatidylserine (PS) and 67% liver
phosphatidylcholine (PC). Vesicle-bound RGS4 was separated from soluble
RGS4 by centrifugation. Both WT and
1-33 RGS4 were soluble in the
absence of vesicles (Fig. 2A). The small amount of RGS4 found in the pellet fraction was due to
incomplete removal of the supernatant. In the presence of the PS:PC
(1:2) vesicles, nearly all of the WT RGS4 was found in the vesicle
pellet (Fig. 2A). In contrast, the
1-33 mutant remained in the supernatant, indicating that the N-terminal domain is necessary for lipid-protein interaction. Next, we tested the dependence of RGS4
binding on the presence of anionic phospholipids in the vesicles. PS
was titrated into PC vesicles from 0 to 60%. RGS4 bound poorly to
vesicles containing pure PC but efficiently to vesicles containing 20%
or more PS (data not shown). The
1-33 mutant required higher
concentrations of PS (40% or greater) before appearing in the vesicle
pellet (data not shown). We conclude that RGS4 interacts directly with
lipids and does not require any protein factor to mediate its binding
to a membrane in the presence of physiologically relevant
concentrations of anionic phospholipids (29).

View larger version (34K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 2.
RGS4 binds directly to anionic lipids in the
membrane. A, binding of recombinant wild type RGS4 and
1-33 RGS4 to PS:PC (1:2) sucrose loaded vesicles. Pellet
(P) and soluble (S) fractions of proteins in the
presence (+) or absence (
) of vesicles were visualized by immunoblot.
A mobility shift was seen for the WT protein because of the presence of
vesicles in the gel. B, binding of recombinant wild type and
1-33 RGS4 to bovine brain membranes.
-Helix in the
Presence of Anionic Liposomes--
Our hypothesis predicts that the N
terminus of RGS4 forms an amphipathic
-helix. Structural information
for this region of the protein was not available from the x-ray crystal
structure (30). Therefore, we used CD spectroscopy to examine the
structure of a peptide corresponding to the first 31 residues of RGS4.
Residues 32 and 33 of the N-terminal domain were omitted from the
peptide to simplify the synthesis. Far UV circular dichroism is useful for determining the secondary structure elements of proteins such as
-sheet,
-helix, and random coil. These types of secondary structure can be distinguished by the characteristic shape of the CD
spectrum. In aqueous solution, the RGS4 peptide adopted a random coil
conformation as seen by the single minimum at 200 nm (Fig.
3). To evaluate the conformation of the
RGS4 peptide in the presence of liposomes, vesicles were prepared with
DPPG and DPPC. This lipid composition was chosen because vesicles
containing DPPG and DPPC gave no significant signal in the CD spectra,
whereas vesicles composed of PS:PC exhibited significant light
scattering. In the presence of neutral liposomes (100% DPPC), the
peptide maintained the random coil conformation (Fig. 3). However, with 10% anionic (DPPG) phospholipids, the peptide began to exhibit a CD
spectrum characteristic of an
-helix. This was seen by a pair of
minima at 222 and 208 nm, crossing the base line at 200 nm, and a
maximum close to 190 nm. With 20% DPPG liposomes, the peptide was
maximally helical with a molar ellipticity (
222) of
22,100 deg cm2/dmol. The
222 in 20% DPPG
represents approximately 64%
-helix. Liposomes with greater than
20% DPPG gave a CD spectrum identical to that with 20% DPPG,
indicating that there was no further structural change with increasing
concentrations of anionic lipids.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 3.
The N-terminal 31 amino acids of RGS4 adopts
an
-helical structure in the presence of
anionic liposomes. CD spectra were recorded as described under
"Experimental Procedures." Each curve is the average of
at least two independent spectra smoothed over 2-nm intervals. For
clarity, data markers were placed once for every ten data points.
Spectra plotted are RGS4 1-31 without liposomes (
), with 100% DPPC
liposomes (
), with 10:90 DPPG:DPPC liposomes (
), with 20:80
DPPG:DPPC liposomes (
). Liposomes with more than 20% DPPG give
spectra identical to that with 20:80 DPPG:DPPC liposomes.
-Helix Destroy Membrane Binding and Function in Vivo--
Our
results suggest that in vitro the N-terminal region of RGS4
adopts an
-helical conformation in the presence of anionic membranes. This is consistent with our model for the N-terminal region,
whereby a polybasic stretch of amino acids and a cluster of hydrophobic
residues contribute to the formation of an amphipathic
-helix that
mediates interactions with cell membranes. To address whether both the
charge and the hydrophobicity of the N-terminal helix contribute to its
membrane targeting ability, we designed mutants of RGS4 in which either
positively charged residues were neutralized or hydrophobic residues
were replaced with polar amino acids. We constructed these mutants with
GFP fused to the C terminus of RGS4, expressed them in the budding
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and viewed their subcellular
localization by live cell confocal microscopy (Fig.
4, left panels). We tested for
the function of the RGS4 mutant proteins in yeast by measuring the
ability of RGS4 to inhibit pheromone signaling (Fig. 4, right
panels). In response to mating pheromone, yeast cells arrest late
in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. This response can be
measured by the size of the halo or zone of growth inhibition of cell
lawns surrounding a pheromone-containing disc on an agar plate.

View larger version (49K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 4.
Effects of point mutations in the
N-terminal
-helix of RGS4 on membrane
targeting and biological activity in yeast. Confocal images of
SWY518 yeast expressing the indicated RGS4-GFP fusion proteins from the
high copy pVT102U vector are shown in the left panels. The
ability of the indicated RGS4-GFP fusions to inhibit yeast mating
pheromone response was measured using growth arrest (halo) assays
(right panels). RGS4-GFP fusions were expressed from a
single-copy vector, YCp50, in a mutant (BC180) that lacks Sst2, the
yeast RGS protein that regulates the mating pheromone response.
1-33 RGS4-GFP was
cytosolic when expressed in yeast and was nonfunctional in the halo assay.
1-33, K17A/R22A, R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A, and L23Q/L26Q/L27Q (Fig.
5). All of the proteins were effective GAPs in solution, as measured by single-turnover Pi release
assays (data not shown). Thus, their defects in signaling cannot be
attributed to a loss of GAP activity.

View larger version (47K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 5.
Coomassie-stained gel of purified recombinant
RGS4 proteins. Proteins were expressed and purified as described
under "Experimental Procedures." An aliquot containing 1 µg of
each protein was applied to the gel. Protein concentration was measured
by Bradford assay (36).
1-33 RGS4, 76 ± 5% compared with
24 ± 4%. As the DPPG content increased to 40%, WT binding rose
to 92 ± 5% and
1-33 RGS4 to 46 ± 7%. These results
are qualitatively similar to the results of Fig. 1, where all of the WT
RGS4 and none of
1-33 bound to PS:PC (1:2) vesicles. When binding
of
1-33 to DPPG:PC (1:2) vesicles was analyzed by immunoblot,
approximately 25% of
1-33 was found in the pellet compared with
99% of the WT protein (data not shown). Thus, contributions to vesicle
association by regions outside the N-terminal domain of RGS4 become
apparent at lower concentrations of DPPG than PS. Nevertheless, in
vesicles that most closely mimic biological membranes (PS:PC 1:2) and
in brain membranes (Fig. 1), the primary determinant of membrane binding is the N-terminal domain.

View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 6.
Effects of point mutations in the
N-terminal
-helix of RGS4 on vesicle
binding. Protein and vesicles were incubated for 15 min and
separated by centrifugation at 100,000 × g. The amount
of protein in the pellet and supernatant fractions was quantitated by
phosphorimage analysis of a dot-blot. The percentage of protein bound
to sucrose-loaded vesicles composed of DPPG and liver PC in ratios of
20:80 (black bars) or 40:60 (white bars) is
shown. Each bar represents the mean ± S.E. of three independent
vesicle preparations.
-Helical Structure of the N-terminal Domain of RGS4 Is
Compromised in Peptides Corresponding to RGS4 Point Mutants That
Disrupt Targeting to the Plasma Membrane--
To determine how these
mutations affect the formation of an
-helix, peptides corresponding
to the sequence of the first 31 residues in the K17A/R22A,
R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A, and L23Q/L26Q/L27Q mutants were synthesized and
analyzed by CD spectroscopy. The molar ellipticity at 222 nm and the
percentage of
-helix content as a function of the percentage of DPPG
in DPPG:DPPC liposomes for the WT and mutant RGS4 N-terminal peptides
are shown in Fig. 7. The peptide
corresponding to the double mutant K17A/R22A displayed a spectrum
similar to WT. Thus, under these assay conditions there was no obvious
structural perturbation revealed to account for the intermediate
phenotype associated with the double mutant. The loss of positive
charge may account for decreased binding, rather than a structural
change. However, the R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A and L23Q/L26Q/L27Q mutant
peptides were deficient in
-helix formation. Whereas the WT peptide
achieved maximal
-helicity at 20% DPPG, higher concentrations of
anionic lipids were needed to drive
-helix formation in the
quadruple charge mutant and the triple leucine mutant peptides. The
maximum content of
-helix for the R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A peptide was
54%, and that for the L23Q/L26Q/L27Q peptide was 38%. Our results
with the mutant peptides indicate that both aliphatic and positively
charged residues are necessary for
-helix formation.

View larger version (22K):
[in a new window]
Fig. 7.
Positive and hydrophobic residues in the
N-terminal 31 amino acids of RGS4 are necessary for
-helix formation. Molar ellipticity at 222 nm
and the percentage of
-helix are plotted as a function of DPPG
content in DPPG:DPPC liposomes. The four peptides tested are WT
sequence (
), K17A/R22A (
), R14A/K17A/R22A/K29A (
), and
L23Q/L26Q/L27Q (
). Each data point is the mean ± S.E. from
2-4 independent spectra.
![]()
DISCUSSION
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
-helix within the N-terminal 33 amino acids (10). In
this study, we tested that hypothesis and provide the first direct
evidence that at least part of this region of the protein forms an
-helix. CD spectroscopy revealed that a peptide corresponding to the
first 31 amino acids of RGS4 adopts an
-helical conformation in the
presence of phospholipid vesicles containing anionic phospholipids.
Site-directed mutagenesis of hydrophobic and basic residues within the
N-terminal domain of RGS4 revealed that biological activity and plasma
membrane association in yeast are strongly correlated with the ability
of RGS4 to bind to anionic liposomes and the propensity of an
N-terminal peptide to adopt an
-helical conformation. Lin and
co-workers (13) recently confirmed that a similar domain in RGS16 is
critical for its biological activity and membrane association in yeast.
Based on mutational analysis of RGS16, they proposed that the
amphipathic membrane targeting helix spans amino acids 12-30 of RGS16.
The RGS4 mutants we characterized are within this region of the
N-terminal domain and are consistent with the results for RGS16.
Furthermore, the CD spectroscopy data presented here directly
demonstrate that amino acid substitutions within residues 12-30
profoundly affect
-helical structure. The conservation of this
structural motif in RGS4 and RGS16 points to its functional importance
for this subfamily of RGS proteins.
-helices has been
established previously for prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthases 1 and
2 (17, 18) and CTP:phosphocholine cytidylyltransferase (CCT) (16).
Interestingly, prostaglandin endoperoxide H synthase is found
constitutively bound to ER and nuclear membranes, whereas CCT is
present in the cytoplasm and bound to nuclear membranes. The
amphipathic helix of CCT serves as an autoinhibitory switch, with the
soluble form of the enzyme inactive (31). Binding of the helix to
membrane relieves autoinhibition, activating the enzyme and changing
its subcellular localization. In CCT, the amphipathic helix serves as a
reversible membrane anchor, whereas in prostaglandin endoperoxide H
synthase, it mediates stable association. This is intriguing in light
of the observations regarding RGS4 membrane targeting. When
heterologously expressed in yeast or insect cells, there is a
significant pool of RGS4 constitutively bound to the plasma membrane
(10). In transfected mammalian cells, however, RGS4 is predominately
cytosolic (32).2 At least
transient association of RGS4 with the plasma membrane must occur in
mammalian cells to permit interactions with G protein signaling pathway
components. Similarly to CCT, RGS4 may cycle between membranes and the
cytoplasm in mammalian cells.
11 and interactions of the N-terminal
domain with membranes (33). How the N-terminal domain of RGS3, which
shares little sequence similarity with RGS4, interacts with membranes
is unknown. Druey and co-workers (32) have proposed translocation of
RGS4 to the plasma membrane through a signal-dependent
mechanism. RGS4 is localized at the plasma membrane of HEK293 cells
when expressed with constitutively active Gi
2. Plasma membrane localization is
apparently independent of G protein binding because a mutant of RGS4,
which cannot bind G protein, is also translocated. This suggests that
RGS4 translocation may be a consequence of G protein activation rather
than direct binding. However, it remains to be shown whether RGS4
translocates to the membrane in response to a physiological signal.
and N-terminal interactions with the receptor (14). It will
be interesting to test whether mutations that perturb the
-helical
structure of RGS4 also affect its ability to respond selectively to
receptors in mammalian cells. In yeast, membrane localization of RGS4
is independent of receptor and G protein
expression.3 Signaling
activity cannot be uncoupled from membrane binding activity, suggesting
that interactions with the lipid bilayer are required to position RGS4
near its target.
![]()
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
![]()
FOOTNOTES
Supported by National Institutes of Health Training Grant T32GM8151.
![]()
ABBREVIATIONS
![]()
REFERENCES
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
1.
Hepler, J. R.
(1999)
Trends Pharm. Sci.
20,
376-382
2.
Diverse-Pierluissi, M. A.,
Fischer, T.,
Jordan, J. D.,
Schiff, M.,
Ortiz, D. F.,
Farquhar, M. G.,
and De Vries, L.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
14490-14494
3.
Hepler, J. R.,
Berman, D. M.,
Gilman, A. G.,
and Kozasa, T.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
428-432
4.
Wieland, T.,
Chen, C.-K.,
and Simon, M. I.
(1997)
J. Biol. Chem.
272,
8853-8856
5.
Hart, M. J.,
Jiang, X.,
Kozasa, T.,
Roscoe, W.,
Singer, W. D.,
Gilman, A. G.,
Sternweis, P. C.,
and Bollag, G.
(1998)
Science
280,
2112-2114
6.
Faurobert, E.,
and Hurley, J. B.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
2945-2950
7.
Popov, S., Yu, K.,
Kozasa, T.,
and Wilkie, T. M.
(1997)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
94,
7216-7220
8.
Chen, C.,
and Lin, S.-C.
(1998)
FEBS Lett.
422,
359-362
9.
Srinivasa, S. P.,
Watson, N.,
Overton, M. C.,
and Blumer, K. J.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
1529-1533
10.
Srinivasa, S. P.,
Bernstein, L. S.,
Blumer, K. J.,
and Linder, M. E.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
5584-5589
11.
DeVries, L.,
Elenko, E.,
Hubler, L.,
Jones, T. L. Z.,
and Farquhar, M. G.
(1996)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
93,
15203-15208
12.
Wang, J.,
Ducret, A.,
Tu, Y.,
Kozasa, T.,
Aebersold, R.,
and Ross, E. M.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
26014-26025
13.
Chen, C.,
Seow, K. T.,
Guo, K.,
Yaw, L. P.,
and Lin, S.-C.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
19799-19806
14.
Zeng, W.,
Xu, X.,
Popov, S.,
Mukhopadhyay, S.,
Chidiac, P.,
Swistok, J.,
Danho, W.,
Yagaloff, K. A.,
Fisher, S. L.,
Ross, E. M.,
Muallem, S.,
and Wilkie, T. M.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
34687-34690
15.
Druey, K. M.,
Ugur, O.,
Caron, J. M.,
Chen, C.-K.,
Backlund, P. S.,
and Jones, T. L. Z.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
18836-18842
16.
Dunne, S. J.,
Cornell, R. B.,
Johnson, J. E.,
Glover, N. R.,
and Tracey, A. S.
(1996)
Biochemistry
35,
11975-11984
17.
Picot, D.,
Loll, P. J.,
and Garavito, M.
(1994)
Nature
367,
243-249
18.
Li, Y.,
Smith, T.,
Grabski, S.,
and DeWitt, D. L.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
29830-29837
19.
Lee, E.,
Linder, M. E.,
and Gilman, A. G.
(1994)
Methods Enzymol.
237,
146-164
20.
Linder, M. E.,
Ewald, D. A.,
Miller, R. J.,
and Gilman, A. G.
(1990)
J. Biol. Chem.
265,
8243-8251
21.
Kim, J.,
Blackshear, P. J.,
Johnson, J. D.,
and McLaughlin, S.
(1994)
Biophys. J.
67,
227-237
22.
Vergeres, G.,
and Ramsden, J. J.
(1998)
Biochem. J.
330,
5-11
23.
MacDonald, R. C.,
MacDonald, R. I.,
Menco, B. P. M.,
Takeshita, K.,
Subbarao, N. K.,
and Hu, L.-r.
(1991)
Biochim. Biophys. Acta
1061,
297-303
24.
Sternweis, P. C.,
and Robishaw, J. D.
(1984)
J. Biol. Chem.
259,
13806-13813
25.
Johnson, J. E.,
and Cornell, R. B.
(1994)
Biochemistry
33,
4327-4335
26.
Macala, L. J., Yu, R. K.,
and Ando, S.
(1983)
J. Lipid. Res.
24,
1243-1250
27.
Chang, C. T.,
Wu, C. C.,
and Yang, J. T.
(1978)
Anal. Biochem.
91,
13-31
28.
Bucci, M.,
and Wente, S. R.
(1997)
J. Cell Biol.
136,
1185-1199
29.
Devaux, P. F.
(1992)
Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Structure
21,
417-439
30.
Tesmer, J. J. G.,
Berman, D. M.,
Gilman, A. G.,
and Sprang, S. R.
(1997)
Cell
89,
251-261
31.
Wang, Y.,
and Kent, C.
(1995)
J. Biol. Chem.
270,
18948-18952
32.
Druey, K. M.,
Sullivan, B. M.,
Brown, D.,
Fischer, E. R.,
Watson, N.,
Blumer, K. J.,
Gerfen, C. R.,
Scheschonka, A.,
and Kehrl, J. H.
(1998)
J. Biol. Chem.
273,
18405-18410
33.
Dulin, N. O.,
Sorokin, A.,
Reed, E.,
Elliott, S.,
Kehrl, J. H.,
and Dunn, M. J.
(1999)
Mol. Cell. Biol.
19,
714-723
34.
Xu, X.,
Zeng, W.,
Popov, S.,
Berman, D.,
Davignon, I., Yu, K.,
Yowe, D.,
Offermanns, S.,
Muallem, S.,
and Wilkie, T. M.
(1999)
J. Biol. Chem.
274,
3549-3556
35.
DeVries, L.,
Lou, X.,
Zhao, G.,
Zheng, B.,
and Farquhar, M. G.
(1998)
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
95,
12340-12345
36.
Bradford, M. M.
(1976)
Anal. Biochem.
72,
248-254
Copyright © 2000 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
S. Gu, S. Tirgari, and S. P. Heximer The RGS2 Gene Product from a Candidate Hypertension Allele Shows Decreased Plasma Membrane Association and Inhibition of Gq Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2008; 73(4): 1037 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Gu, J. He, W.-T. Ho, S. Ramineni, D. M. Thal, R. Natesh, J. J. G. Tesmer, J. R. Hepler, and S. P. Heximer Unique Hydrophobic Extension of the RGS2 Amphipathic Helix Domain Imparts Increased Plasma Membrane Binding and Function Relative to Other RGS R4/B Subfamily Members J. Biol. Chem., November 9, 2007; 282(45): 33064 - 33075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. H. Pedone and J. R. Hepler The Importance of N-terminal Polycysteine and Polybasic Sequences for G14{alpha} and G16{alpha} Palmitoylation, Plasma Membrane Localization, and Signaling Function J. Biol. Chem., August 31, 2007; 282(35): 25199 - 25212. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Bodenstein, R. K. Sunahara, and R. R. Neubig N-Terminal Residues Control Proteasomal Degradation of RGS2, RGS4, and RGS5 in Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells Mol. Pharmacol., April 1, 2007; 71(4): 1040 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. P. Heximer and K. J. Blumer RGS Proteins: Swiss Army Knives in Seven-Transmembrane Domain Receptor Signaling Networks Sci. Signal., January 23, 2007; 2007(370): pe2 - pe2. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Toro-Castillo, A. Thapliyal, H. Gonzalez-Ochoa, B. A. Adams, and U. Meza Muscarinic modulation of Cav2.3 (R-type) calcium channels is antagonized by RGS3 and RGS3T Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, January 1, 2007; 292(1): C573 - C580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Jaen and C. A. Doupnik RGS3 and RGS4 Differentially Associate with G Protein-coupled Receptor-Kir3 Channel Signaling Complexes Revealing Two Modes of RGS Modulation: PRECOUPLING AND COLLISION COUPLING J. Biol. Chem., November 10, 2006; 281(45): 34549 - 34560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. M. Ross, D. Mateu, A. V. Gomes, C. Arana, T. Tran, and I. Litosch Structural Determinants for Phosphatidic Acid Regulation of Phospholipase C-beta1 J. Biol. Chem., November 3, 2006; 281(44): 33087 - 33094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
Y. Le, M. Honczarenko, A. M. Glodek, D. K. Ho, and L. E. Silberstein CXC Chemokine Ligand 12-Induced Focal Adhesion Kinase Activation and Segregation into Membrane Domains Is Modulated by Regulator of G Protein Signaling 1 in Pro-B Cells J. Immunol., March 1, 2005; 174(5): 2582 - 2590. [Abstract] |