HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 280, Issue 6, 4166-4173, February 11, 2005

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 280/6/4166    most recent M411262200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hill, K. Articles by Stephens, L. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hill, K. Articles by Stephens, L. R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Regulation of P-Rex1 by Phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-Trisphosphate and G Subunits^*

Kirsti Hill, Sonja Krugmann¶, Simon R. Andrews||, W. John Coadwell||, Peter Finan**, Heidi C. E. Welch, Phillip T. Hawkins, and Len R. Stephens

From the Inositide Laboratory and ^||Bioinformatics Group, The Babraham Institute, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge CB2 4AT, United Kingdom and ^**Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Wimblehurst Road, Horsham RH12 5AB, United Kingdom

Received for publication, October 1, 2004 , and in revised form, November 12, 2004.

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
P-Rex1 is a guanine-nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for the small GTPase Rac. We have investigated here the mechanisms of stimulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity by the lipid second messenger phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate (PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃) and the G subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins. We show that a P-Rex1 mutant lacking the PH domain (PH) cannot be stimulated by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, which implies that the PH domain confers PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity. Consistent with this, we found that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binds to the PH domain of P-Rex1 and that the DH/PH domain tandem is sufficient for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-stimulated P-Rex1 activity. The Rac-GEF activities of the PH mutant and the DH/PH domain tandem can both be stimulated by G subunits, which infers that G subunits regulate P-Rex1 activity by binding to the catalytic DH domain. Deletion of the DEP, PDZ, or inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase homology domains has no major consequences on the abilities of either PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ or G subunits to stimulate P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity. However, the presence of any of these domains impacts on the levels of basal and/or stimulated P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity, suggesting that there are important functional interactions between the DH/PH domain tandem and the DEP, PDZ, and inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase homology domains of P-Rex1.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The P-Rex family (P-Rex1, P-Rex2, and P-Rex2B) are guanine-nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs)¹ (1–3), enzymes that catalyze the dissociation of GDP from small GTPases, allowing excess free GTP to bind, and thus rendering the GTPases active. The substrate of the P-Rex family is the Rho family GTPase Rac (1–3), an enzyme that regulates a wide range of cell functions, including cell shape, movement, secretion, phagocytosis, transcription, translation, and the production of reactive oxygen species. Depletion of P-Rex1 from neutrophil-related cell lines results in low reactive oxygen species formation via G protein-coupled receptors (1).

More than a dozen Rac-GEFs are known apart from the P-Rex family, for example, the Vav, Sos, and Tiam families (4). Their Rac-GEF activities are tightly regulated, often by a combination of mechanisms. Some are activated by phosphorylation through protein kinases, e.g. Vav1 and Ras-GRF1 by Src family protein tyrosine kinases (5, 6), Sos1 by Abl (7), and Tiam1 by Ca²⁺/calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (8). Another activating mechanism is binding to phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate (PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃), a lipid second messenger produced by class I phosphoinositide 3-kinase. PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ stimulates the Rac-GEF activities of P-Rex1, SWAP-70, Vav1, and Sos1 (9). Finally, Rac-GEFs can be activated by protein interactions. For example, Tiam1 is activated by binding to GTP-Ras (10), Sos1 by the protein complex Abi1-Eps8 (11), and P-Rex family enzymes by the subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins (1, 2).

The basic element for Rac-GEF activity is the catalytic Dbl homology (DH) domain. Regulating accessibility of the substrate GTPase to the DH domain is an important mechanism governing GEF activation. In Vav1, the main regulatory phosphorylation site Y174 lies just NH₂-terminal of the DH domain, and its phosphorylation relieves an autoinhibition between the peptide stretch around Y174 and the DH domain, thus activating the GEF (12). Typically, the DH domain is in tandem with a pleckstrin homology (PH) domain, a phosphoinositide binding domain, the role of which is still not completely understood and seems to vary between GEFs. Crystal structures of Sos1 and Tiam1 DH/PH tandems have shown that the DH and PH domains interact with one another. In Sos1, this interaction precludes access of Rac to its binding site (13), whereas in Tiam1 it does not (14). For Vav, PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to the PH domain facilitates Vav1 tyrosine phosphorylation, thus enhancing its Rac-GEF activity (15). Similarly, for Sos1, PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to the PH domain seems to relieve the intramolecular inhibition between DH and PH, enabling Rac binding and, presumably, GEF activation (16). In contrast, the activity of Tiam1 is not affected by binding of another phosphoinositide, PtdIns 3-phosphate, to the PH domain in its DH/PH tandem (17).

As described above, P-Rex family enzymes are directly activated by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and G subunits. Precedent would suggest that the binding site for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ lies within its PH domain, but the binding site for the G subunits is less predictable. One other Rac-GEF known to interact directly with G subunits is p114 Rho-GEF, an enzyme that activates RhoA and Rac1 in vivo (18). p114 Rho-GEF binds G subunits both via its DH/PH tandem and its COOH terminus, and overexpression of the p114 Rho-GEF DH/PH tandem together with G subunits in NIH3T3 cells results in downstream activation of the serum response element (18). However, it is not known whether G subunits regulate the catalytic activity of p114 Rho-GEF. The Rac-GEF activity of one other GEF, Ras-GRF1, is regulated by G subunits, but here the effect is indirect, via activation of protein-tyrosine kinases (19). Similarly, the CDC42-GEF activity of PIX is stimulated by G subunits indirectly, via their binding to PAK1 (20). Other families of enzymes whose activities are directly regulated by G subunits do exist, including phosphoinositide 3-kinase , phospholipase C, and adenylyl cyclase II, and the interactions between these enzymes and G subunits have been studied in some detail (21–23). However, no consensus G binding motif can be inferred from this work that would predict how G subunits act on the P-Rex family.

P-Rex family enzymes, like most GEFs, are multidomain proteins. Apart from the catalytic DH domain and tandem PH domain, they also contain two DEP domains (Disheveled, EGL-10, and pleckstrin homology) and two PDZ domains (post-synaptic density disc-large zo-1 homology). These are protein interaction domains that are frequently found in signaling proteins. It is emerging that DEP domains might generally serve to target their proteins to membranes, possibly by interactions with proteins of the SNARE superfamily (24), whereas PDZ domains are known to serve a large range of different adaptor-type functions, influencing the activity and/or targeting of their interacting partners (25). The roles of the DEP and PDZ domains in the P-Rex proteins are unknown. Finally, P-Rex1 and P-Rex2 also have a weak homology over their COOH-terminal half to inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase (1, 2), whereas P-Rex2B, a splice variant of P-Rex2, lacks this COOH-terminal half (3). Inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase is an enzyme that catalyzes the 4'-dephosphorylation of inositol (3,4)-bisphosphate, inositol (1,3,4)-trisphosphate, and PtdIns(3,4)-bisphosphate (26). It regulates the survival of several types of neurons in the cerebellum and hippocampus (27). Although the residues required for phosphatase activity are present in the inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase homology (IP4P) domain of P-Rex1 and P-Rex2, we have so far not been able to demonstrate any phosphatase activity. Here, we have studied the mechanisms of regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and by G subunits through the generation and characterization of a panel of P-Rex1 deletion, truncation, and point mutants.

	EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Materials—Recombinant EE-Rac1 and EE-G₁₂ subunits were produced in Spodoptera frugiperda (Sf9) cells, purified using their EE-tag, and stored as described previously (1). D/D-Stearoyl-arachidonyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, the naturally occurring form of PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, was synthesized by P. Gaffney (28). D/D- and L/L-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ diastereoisomers were made by G. Painter (29). PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ beads, i.e. D/D-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ coupled to Affi-Gel beads, were made as described (30).

Generation of Mutant P-Rex1 Proteins—We have constructed a panel of human P-Rex1 proteins consisting of WT P-Rex1 and eight mutant proteins (Fig. 1). The design of the E56A/N238A point mutations ("GEF-dead" construct) was based on alignments of the DH domain with those of other Rac-GEFs. Glu⁵⁶ in P-Rex1 is equivalent to Glu¹⁰⁴⁷ in Tiam1 and Asn²³⁸ in P-Rex1 to Asn¹²³² in Tiam1 (14). Both residues in Tiam1 are involved in building the interface with Rac, and their mutation to alanine disrupts Tiam Rac-GEF activity (14). The E56A/N238A P-Rex1 construct was cloned using mutagenic primers. The design of the other mutants was based on domain boundary predictions made with SMART and PFAM programs. P-Rex1 lacking the PH domain (PH), P-Rex1 lacking both DEP domains (DEP), and P-Rex1 lacking both PDZ domains (PDZ) were constructed with a short linker (STPSTS) to join the sequence preceding and following the deleted domains. The isolated PH domain (iPH) and the isolated IP4P domain (iIP4P) were cloned with a 5'-flanking in-frame EcoRI site and methionine start codon, and with a 3'-flanking stop codon and XbaI restriction site. The isolated DH/PH domain tandem (iDHPH) and P-Rex1 lacking the IP4P domain (IP4P) are COOH-terminal deletions that were cloned with a 3'-flanking stop codon and XbaI restriction site.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. Panel of P-Rex1 mutants.

Rac-GEF Activity Assay—Sf9 cell-derived purified human recombinant WT and mutant P-Rex1 proteins were assayed for Rac-GEF activity in vitro essentially as described previously (1). Briefly, 100 nM GDP-loaded purified recombinant Sf9 cell-derived EE-tagged Rac1 was incubated with 50 nM P-Rex1 protein, [³⁵S]GTPS, and liposomes (comprised of 200 µM each of phosphatidylcholine, -serine, and -inositol) that either did or did not contain varying concentrations of synthetic D/D-stearoyl-arachidonyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ or purified recombinant Sf9 cell-derived G₁₂ subunits. Rac was then immunoprecipitated using its EE-tag and its [³⁵S]GTPS loading was measured. To control for the fact that cholate (from the G subunit storage buffer) inhibits P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity, mock stimulations were performed for each G concentration with the equivalent cholate buffer control.

PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ Binding Assay—PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to Sf9 cell-derived purified human recombinant WT and mutant P-Rex1 proteins was measured using an assay derived from a protocol we have previously used to identify many PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-binding proteins (30). For this, P-Rex1 proteins were pre-cleared with Affi-Gel beads in assay buffer (1x phosphate-buffered saline, 1 mM MgCl₂, 0.1% Triton X-100, 0.5 mg ml^–1 fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin) and then incubated at 60 nM final concentration with or without 20 µM D/D- or L/L-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ in assay buffer on ice for 15 min. The samples were then added to D/D-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-coupled Affi-Gel beads or control Affi-Gel beads and incubated for 40 min at 4 °C with end-over-end rotation. Beads were washed four times in assay buffer before addition of SDS sample buffer. Proteins bound to the beads were detected by SDS-PAGE followed by anti-EE Western blotting.

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
P-Rex1 Mutagenesis—To study the activation of P-Rex1 by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and G subunits, we constructed a panel of deletion, truncation, and point mutants of human P-Rex1. The panel consisted of WT P-Rex1; P-Rex1 with two point mutations, E56A and N238A, in the catalytic DH domain (GEF-dead mutant); P-Rex1 lacking the PH domain (PH mutant); P-Rex1 lacking both DEP domains (DEP mutant); P-Rex1 lacking both PDZ domains (PDZ mutant); P-Rex1 lacking the IP4P domain (IP4P mutant); the isolated IP4P domain (iIP4P mutant); the isolated DH/PH domain tandem (iDHPH mutant); and the isolated PH domain (iPH mutant) (Fig. 1). The WT and mutant P-Rex1 proteins were produced as recombinant NH₂-terminal EE epitope-tagged proteins in Sf9 cells and purified using their EE tag. All P-Rex1 proteins were expressed at their expected sizes, WT P-Rex1 and the GEF-dead mutant at 185 kDa, the PH mutant at 170 kDa, the DEP mutant at 166 kDa, the PDZ mutant at 168 kDa, the IP4P and iIP4P mutants at 93 kDa, the iDHPH mutant at 45 kDa, and the iPH mutant at 15 kDa (Fig. 2).

View larger version (104K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. Purification of recombinant WT P-Rex1 and mutant P-Rex1 proteins. Human WT P-Rex1 and P-Rex1 mutants were cloned, expressed with NH2-terminal EE-epitope tags in Sf9 cells, and purified using their EE tag as detailed under "Experimental Procedures." To assess purity and size of the P-Rex1 proteins, 10 µl of each preparation were analyzed by SDS-PAGE followed by Coomassie staining, except for the IP4P mutant, of which 20 µl were loaded. The band at 66 kDa is bovine serum albumin from the P-Rex1 protein storage buffer. The iPH mutant (see arrow) was loaded onto this gel prior to the addition of bovine serum albumin.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. Rac-GEF activity of WT P-Rex1 and P-Rex1 mutants. The basal Rac-GEF activity of each P-Rex1 protein was assessed in vitro using 100 nM purified GDP-loaded Sf9 cell-derived EE-Rac1 as substrate, by measuring its GTPS loading as detailed under "Experimental Procedures." The concentration of WT P-Rex1 and all mutant P-Rex1 proteins in the assay was 50 nM, except for the iDHPH domain, which was used at both 50 (1) and 4 nM (2) to estimate the extent of its basal activity. Data are mean ± S.E. from three to five experiments performed in duplicate, except for the GEF dead mutant, which is mean ± range from two experiments and high-dose iDHPH (1), which is from one experiment.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 4. PtdIns(3,4,5)P3-dependent stimulation of the Rac-GEF activities of WT P-Rex1 and P-Rex1 mutants. The Rac-GEF activities of WT P-Rex1 and the P-Rex1 mutants were assayed as described in the legend to Fig. 3, except with the indicated concentrations of synthetic D/D-stearoyl/arachidonyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P3, as detailed under "Experimental Procedures." The concentration of WT P-Rex1 and all mutant P-Rex1 proteins in the assay was 50 nM, except for the iDHPH tandem, which was 4 nM. Data are mean ± S.E. from three to five experiments performed in duplicate, except the GEF dead mutant, which are mean ± range from two experiments, and "No-GEF" data, which are from one experiment representative of three.

We made one additional interesting observation in this series of experiments: PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ was inhibitory for the Rac-GEF activities of both mutants lacking the IP4P domain, the iDH/PH and IP4P proteins, at concentrations above 3 µM. The suspected lower specific activity of the IP4P protein (see above) cannot account for the striking difference in the PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ dose-response curve of this mutant compared with WT. This result suggests that the presence of the IP4P domain might serve to prevent inactivation of the WT P-Rex1 enzyme at high PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ concentrations.

G Subunit-dependent Regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF Activity—Next, we assayed the G subunit-dependent stimulation of the in vitro Rac-GEF activities of WT P-Rex1 and those mutant P-Rex1 proteins that contain the DH domain, using purified recombinant Sf9 cell-derived G₁₂ subunits as stimulus (Fig. 5). In this series of experiments, GEF activities were inhibited by the cholate in the G storage buffer, so we performed cholate buffer controls throughout, and we normalized results to the basal activity of WT P-Rex1 to allow direct comparison of all mutants. G subunits activated Rac to a limited extent in the absence of any GEF (about 7% of the total Rac in the assay in 10 min). In contrast, the Rac-GEF activity of WT P-Rex1 was strongly and directly stimulated by G subunits. The activation was 30-fold at 0.3 µM G subunits, similar to that described in our original report on P-Rex1 (1). We did not attempt to determine EC₅₀ values for G subunit-dependent Rac-GEF activity, as even the highest G subunit concentrations we could achieve in our assay were non-saturating. As expected, the E56A/N238A GEF-dead mutant could not be activated by G subunits. Surprisingly, the Rac-GEF activities of all other mutants could. Notably, both the iDHPH mutant and the PH mutant, having only the DH domain in common, were activated by G subunits to a similar degree as WT P-Rex1. This surprising result infers that the DH domain mediates G subunit-dependent regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 5. G subunit-dependent stimulation of the Rac-GEF activities of WT P-Rex1 and P-Rex1 mutants. The Rac-GEF activities of WT P-Rex1 and the P-Rex1 mutants were assayed as described in the legend to Fig. 3, except with the indicated concentrations of purified Sf9 cell-derived recombinant G12 subunits (filled symbols) or mock stimulated with the appropriate cholate buffer controls (open symbols), as detailed under "Experimental Procedures." The concentration of WT P-Rex1 and all mutant P-Rex1 proteins in the assay was 50 nM. Data are mean ± S.E. from three to five experiments performed in duplicate, except the GEF dead mutant, which are mean ± range from two experiments and "No-GEF" data, which are from one experiment representative of three.

Binding of PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ to P-Rex1—To investigate in more detail the interaction between PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and P-Rex1, we measured next direct binding of PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ to WT P-Rex1 and all mutant P-Rex1 proteins using a PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ bead binding assay (Fig. 6). This assay is based on a protocol we have previously employed to identify many PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-binding proteins (30). Protein binding to PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ beads was compared with binding to control beads and considered specific when it could be competed-off by the naturally occurring D/D form of dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ but not its L/L-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ diastereoisomer. It should be noted that this assay does not define absolute binding affinities but shows the relative abilities of proteins to interact with immobilized PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and to be recovered after a series of rapid washes. We found that WT P-Rex1 and all P-Rex1 mutants except the iIP4P protein could bind PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ in a stereospecific manner. The minimal domain required for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding was the isolated PH domain. Together with the results from the Rac-GEF activity assays, this result strongly suggests that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to the PH domain is sufficient for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-dependent regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity.

View larger version (63K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 6. PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 binding to WT P-Rex1 and P-Rex1 mutants. WT P-Rex1 protein or mutant P-Rex1 proteins were incubated with PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 beads (PtdIns(3,4,5)P3 coupled Affi-Gel beads) or control Affi-Gel beads to with or without competing free D/D- or L/L-dipalmitoyl-PtdIns(3,4,5)P3. The beads were then washed and protein bound to the beads quantified by anti-EE Western blotting, as detailed under "Experimental Procedures." The total control represents 2.5% of the P-Rex1 mutant protein in each assay. Data are representative Western blots from at least two experiments for each mutant.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
In this paper, we have investigated the regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ and G subunits. In essence, we show that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ activates P-Rex1 via the PH domain and that G subunits activate P-Rex1 via the DH domain.

The most surprising finding of our study is that the DH domain of P-Rex1 mediates G subunit-dependent stimulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity. We can conclude this from our results showing that the Rac-GEF activities of the iDHPH mutant and of the PH mutant, having only the DH domain in common, can both be stimulated by G subunits. This is, to our knowledge, the first time that a Dbl family member has been shown to undergo positive regulation of GEF activity through its DH domain. We had expected the G subunits to act either via the DEP, PDZ, or PH domains. The DEP and PDZ domains were likely candidates as they are well known protein interaction domains (see references in Introduction), and the PH domain was another likely candidate as the PH domains of some other signaling proteins, including GRK2 and phospholipase C2, have previously been shown to bind G subunits (31, 32). We have attempted to measure direct binding of G subunits to our P-Rex1 mutants, by immobilizing P-Rex1 proteins and measuring their ability to interact with free G subunits. However, these assays were difficult because of unspecific binding of G subunits to the beads, and the results were inconclusive.

The region within the G subunits that interacts with their various effectors, e.g. GRK2, phospholipase C, or G subunits, is conserved (22, 23, 31). Hence, it is likely that P-Rex1 will compete with these other signaling enzymes for G subunit binding. The structural components of the P-Rex1 DH domain required for interaction with G subunits are unknown. We expect, in analogy with what is known for other G effectors (31), that many residues within the DH domain are going to be involved in building the interface, by folding into a concave groove that can accommodate the G subunits. Which residues these are cannot be easily inferred from the primary sequence. Presumably, binding of G subunits to one side of the DH domain causes a conformational change within the domain that enables access of GDP-Rac to its binding pocket. Structural work will be necessary to elucidate the mode of action of G subunit binding to and activation of the P-Rex1 DH domain.

One intriguing possibility emerging from our work is that more Dbl family GEFs might be regulated by G subunits than presently appreciated, as all of these enzymes possess a DH domain. A screen of several recombinant GEFs or isolated DH domains in a GEF activity assay like ours could address this possibility. p114 Rho-GEF would be a likely candidate to investigate, as it is already known to bind G subunits somewhere within its DH/PH tandem (18).

Our work has also given us some insight into the functioning of the PH domain of P-Rex1. First, the PH domain mediates PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ regulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity. This we concluded from the facts that the Rac-GEF activity of the PH mutant cannot be stimulated by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, whereas that of the iDHPH mutant can, and that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binds to the iPH mutant. Second, we found that the PH domain participates in maintaining a low basal activity of P-Rex1 in the absence of any stimulus (our PH mutant has elevated basal activity). Hence, the role of the P-Rex1 PH domain seems to be similar to that proposed for Vav1 and Sos1, where, in the absence of stimulus, the PH domain interacts with the DH domain, restricting access of Rac to the catalytic site, whereas PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to the PH domain promotes a conformational change that allows access of Rac and catalysis (16). However, PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to Vav1 or Sos1 promotes, at best, a 2-fold stimulation of their Rac-GEF activities (15, 33), so there clearly is some difference in mechanism between Vav1/Sos1 and P-Rex1 regulation by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃. The only other Rac-GEF significantly activated by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ is SWAP-70, where PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ also binds to the PH domain, but the mechanism of action must be different still, as, uniquely, in SWAP-70 the PH domain is located NH₂-terminal to the DH domain (34).

We found, furthermore, that the PH domain alone is not sufficient for keeping WT P-Rex1 catalytically inactive in the absence of stimulus (our iDHPH mutant has very high basal activity). The same applies to the DH/PH domain tandems of Trio (35) and several GEFs for other Rho family GTPases (36). Hence, negative regulation by large parts of GEF protein in addition to the PH domain is common, even though the domains that confer this negative regulation must differ between GEF families, as their domain structures vary a great deal (except the DH/PH tandem). In P-Rex1, the domains that participate with the PH domain in its negative regulation are the DEP and PDZ domains (their removal results in increased basal activity). One question we cannot address with our present panel of P-Rex1 mutants is how much the PH domain contributes to basal guanine-nucleotide exchange catalyzed by the DH domain. In several other GEFs, although the DH domain is always sufficient for activity, the DH/PH domain tandem shows higher basal activity than the isolated DH domain, which has led to the suggestion that the DH/PH domains together act as the true functional catalytic domain (35, 36).

As mentioned above, we have further learned that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binds to the isolated PH domain of P-Rex1, which was not unexpected, as PH domains are well known phosphoinositide binding domains. Whereas many PH domains contain a clear consensus site for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding (36), those in the DH/PH tandem of GEFs usually do not. For example, the critical lysine and arginine residues considered to mediate PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding to the PH domains of Grp1, BTK, or PDK1 (37) are not conserved in P-Rex1. Hence, we did not attempt to pinpoint the exact residues for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ binding in the P-Rex1 PH domain, as it was difficult to identify residues whose mutation would eliminate binding. One surprising result was that PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ also binds to our PH mutant, suggesting that an additional binding site for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ might exist. Two types of domains in P-Rex1, apart from the PH domain, have been shown to interact with phosphoinositides in other proteins, the PDZ and IP4P domains (26, 38). The PDZ domain of syntenin binds PtdIns(4,5)P₂, mediating its membrane binding, and inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase uses PtdIns(3,4)P₂ as one of its substrates (26). However, our PDZ mutant bound PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ seemingly as well as WT P-Rex1, and our iIP4P mutant did not bind PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ at all, so we cannot at present speculate where this putative second binding site might be.

Our work has also yielded some information on the role of the DEP, PDZ, and IP4P domains of P-Rex1. The DEP and PDZ domains help to maintain the low basal activity of the wild type enzyme, as discussed above, whereas the IP4P domain seems to protect the enzyme from inactivation at high concentrations of PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃. Neither of these domains are fundamentally required for PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃- or G subunit-dependent stimulation of P-Rex1 Rac-GEF activity. However, deletion of the DEP and PDZ domains (and possibly, although not likely, the IP4P domain) reduces the maximal activation of the enzyme by G subunits, whereas activation by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ is unaffected, suggesting that the DEP and PDZ domains may somehow participate in full-scale activation of P-Rex1 by G subunits.

Finally, activation of P-Rex family enzymes by PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃ or G subunits can occur independently by one or the other stimulus, the mechanisms of which we have investigated here, but also in synergism (1, 2). Hence, conformational changes and/or membrane translocation induced by one of the stimuli must influence the level of P-Rex activation by the other. Future work should enable us to address the mechanism of this synergistic activation.

	FOOTNOTES

 
^* This work was supported by Grant 202/C19943 from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Supported by a Ph.D. case studentship from the Medical Research Council and Novartis.

^¶ Supported by a grant from Cancer Research UK.

Supported by a Career Development Award from the Medical Research Council. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Inositide Laboratory, The Babraham Institute, Babraham Research Campus, Cambridge CB2 4AT, United Kingdom. Tel.: 44-1223-496-596; Fax: 44-1223-496-043; E-mail: heidi.welch{at}bbsrc.ac.uk.

¹ The abbreviations used are: GEF, guanine-nucleotide exchange factor; DEP, Disheveled, EGL-10, pleckstrin homology; DH, Dbl homology; IP4P, inositol polyphosphate 4-phosphatase; PDZ, post-synaptic density disc-large zo-1 homology; P-Rex, PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃-dependent Rac exchanger; PtdIns(3,4,5)P₃, phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate; WT, wild type; iPH, isolated PH domain; GTPS, guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate; PH, pleckstrin homology.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank David Worthylake, Department of Pharmacology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, for advice in the design of the GEF-dead mutant.

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 

1. Welch, H. C., Coadwell, W. J., Ellson, C. D., Ferguson, G. J., Andrews, S. R., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., Hawkins, P. T., and Stephens, L. R. (2002) Cell 108, 809–821[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Donald, S., Hill, K., Lecureuil, C., Barnouin, R., Krugmann, S., Coadwell, J. W., Andrews, S. R., Walker, S. A., Hawkins, P. T., Stephens, L. R., and Welch, H. C. (2004) FEBS Lett. 572, 172–176[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Rosenfeldt, H., Vazquez-Prado, J., and Gutkind, J. S. (2004) FEBS Lett. 572, 167–171[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Schmidt, A., and Hall, A. (2002) Genes Dev. 16, 1587–1609[Free Full Text]
5. Crespo, P., Schuebel, K. E., Ostrom, A. A., Gutkind, J. S., and Bustelo, X. R. (1997) Nature 385, 169–172[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Kiyono, M., Kaziro, Y., and Satoh, T. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 5441–5446[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7. Sini, P., Cannas, A., Koleske, A. J., Di Fiore, P. P., and Scita, G. (2004) Nat. Cell Biol. 6, 268–274[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. Fleming, I. N., Elliott, C. M., Buchanan, F. G., Downes, C. P., and Exton, J. H. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 12753–12758[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Welch, H. C., Coadwell, W. J., Stephens, L. R., and Hawkins, P. T. (2003) FEBS Lett. 546, 93–97[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Lambert, J. M., Lambert, Q. T., Reuther, G. W., Malliri, A., Siderovski, D. P., and Sondek, J. (2002) Nat. Cell Biol. 4, 621–625[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
11. Scita, G., Nordstrom, J., Carbone, R., Tenca, P., Giardina, G., Gutkind, S., Bjarnegard, M., Betsholtz, C., and Di Fiore, P. P. (1999) Nature 401, 290–293[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Aghazadeh, B., Lowry, W. E., Huang, X. Y., and Rosen, M. K. (2000) Cell 102, 625–633[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13. Soisson, S. M., Nimnual, A. S., Uy, M., Bar-Sagi, D., and Kuriyan, J. (1998) Cell 95, 259–268[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Worthylake, D. K., Rossman, K. L., and Sondek, J. (2000) Nature 408, 682–688[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Han, J., Luby-Phelps, K., Das, B., Shu, X., Xia, Y., Mosteller, R. D., Krishna, U. M., Falck, J. R., White, M. A., and Broek, D. (1998) Science 279, 558–560[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Das, B., Shu, X., Day, G.-J., Han, J., Krishna, U. M., Falck, J. R., and Broek, D. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 15074–15081[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Snyder, J. T., Rossman, K. L., Baumeister, M. A., Pruitt, W. M., Siderovski, D. P., Der, C. J., Lemmon, M. A., and Sondek, J. (2001) J. Biol. Chem. 276, 45868–45875[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Niu, J., Profirovic, J., Pan, H., Vaiskunaite, R., and Voyno-Yasenetskaya, T. (2003) Circ. Res. 93, 848–856[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Kiyono, M., Satoh, T., and Kaziro, Y. (1999) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 4826–4831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. Li, Z., Hannigan, M., Mo, Z., Liu, B., Lu, W., Wu, Y., Smrcka, A. V., Wu, G., Li, L., Liu, M., Huang, C. K., and Wu, D. (2003) Cell 114, 215–227[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
21. Krugmann, S., Hawkins, P. T., Pryer, N., and Braselmann, S. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 17152–17158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Panchenko, M. P., Saxena, K., Li, Y., Charnecki, S., Sternweis, P. M., Smith, T. F., Gilman, A. G., Kozasa, T., and Neer, E. J. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 28298–28304[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Li, Y., Sternweis, P. M., Charnecki, S., Smith, T. F., Gilman, A. G., Neer, E. J., and Kozasa, T. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 16265–16272[Abstract/Free Full Text]
24. Martemyanov, K. A., Lishko, P. V., Calero, N., Keresztes, G., Sokolov, M., Strissel, K. J., Leskov, I. B., Hopp, J. A., Kolesnikov, A. V., Chen, C. K., Lem, J., Heller, S., Burns, M. E., and Arshavsky, V. Y. (2003) J. Neurosci. 23, 10175–10181[Abstract/Free Full Text]
25. van Ham, M., and Hendriks, W. (2003) Mol. Biol. Rep. 30, 69–82[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
26. Norris, F. A., Auethavekiat, V., and Majerus, P. W. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 16128–16133[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Nystuen, A., Legare, M. E., Shultz, L. D., and Frankel, W. N. (2001) Neuron 32, 203–212[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
28. Gaffney, P. R., and Reese, C. B. (1997) Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 7, 3171–3176[CrossRef]
29. Painter, G. F., Grove, S. J., Gilbert, I. H., Holmes, A. B., Paithby, P. R., Hill, M. L., Hawkins, P. T., and Stephens, L. R. (1999) J. Chem. Soc. Perkin Trans. 1, 923–935
30. Krugmann, S., Anderson, K. E., Ridley, S. H., Risso, N., McGregor, A., Coadwell, J., Davidson, K., Eguinoa, A., Ellson, C. D., Lipp, P., Manifava, M., Ktistakis, N., Painter, G., Thuring, J. W., Cooper, M. A., Lim, Z. Y., Holmes, A. B., Dove, S. K., Michell, R. H., Grewal, A., Nazarian, A., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Tempst, P., Stephens, L. R., and Hawkins, P. T. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 95–108[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
31. Lodowski, D. T., Pitcher, J. A., Capel, W. D., Lefkowitz, R. J., and Tesmer, J. J. (2003) Science 300, 1256–1262[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Wang, T., Pentyala, S., Rebecchi, M. J., and Scarlata, S. (1999) Biochemistry 38, 1517–1524[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
33. Innocenti, M., Frittoli, E., Ponzanelli, I., Falck, J. R., Brachmann, S. M., Di Fiore, P. P., and Scita, G. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 160, 17–23[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. Shinohara, M., Terada, Y., Iwamatsu, A., Shinohara, A., Mochizuki, N., Higuchi, M., Gotoh, Y., Ihara, S., Nagata, S., Itoh, H., Fukui, Y., and Jessberger, R. (2002) Nature 416, 759–763[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
35. Liu, X., Wang, H., Eberstadt, M., Schnuchel, A., Olejniczak, E. T., Meadows, R. P., Schkeryantz, J. M., Janowick, D. A., Harlan J. E., Harris, E. A., Staunton, D. E., and Fesik, S. W. (1998) Cell 95, 269–277[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
36. Rossman, K. L., and Campbell, S. L. (2000) Methods Enzymol. 325, 25–38[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
37. Ferguson, K. M., Kavran, J. M., Sankaran, V. G., Fournier, E., Isakoff, S. J., Skolnik, E. Y., and Lemmon, M. A. (2000) Mol. Cell 6, 373–384[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
38. Zimmermann, P., Meerschaert, K., Reekmans, G., Leenaerts, I., Small, J. V., Vandekerckhove, J., David, G., and Gettemans, J. (2002) Mol. Cell 9, 1215–1225[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. E. Waters, M. V. Astle, L. M. Ooms, D. Balamatsias, R. Gurung, and C. A. Mitchell P-Rex1 - a multidomain protein that regulates neurite differentiation J. Cell Sci., September 1, 2008; 121(17): 2892 - 2903. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Ugolev, Y. Berdichevsky, C. Weinbaum, and E. Pick Dissociation of Rac1(GDP){middle dot}RhoGDI Complexes by the Cooperative Action of Anionic Liposomes Containing Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-Trisphosphate, Rac Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor, and GTP J. Biol. Chem., August 8, 2008; 283(32): 22257 - 22271. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Barber, S. Donald, S. Thelen, K. E. Anderson, M. Thelen, and H. C. E. Welch Membrane Translocation of P-Rex1 Is Mediated by G Protein beta{gamma} Subunits and Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase J. Biol. Chem., October 12, 2007; 282(41): 29967 - 29976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Hernandez-Negrete, J. Carretero-Ortega, H. Rosenfeldt, R. Hernandez-Garcia, J. V. Calderon-Salinas, G. Reyes-Cruz, J. S. Gutkind, and J. Vazquez-Prado P-Rex1 Links Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Signaling to Rac Activation and Cell Migration J. Biol. Chem., August 10, 2007; 282(32): 23708 - 23715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Zhao, P. Nalbant, M. Hoshino, X. Dong, D. Wu, and G. M. Bokoch Signaling requirements for translocation of P-Rex1, a key Rac2 exchange factor involved in chemoattractant-stimulated human neutrophil function J. Leukoc. Biol., April 1, 2007; 81(4): 1127 - 1136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Preininger, L. G. Henage, W. M. Oldham, E. J. Yoon, H. E. Hamm, and H. A. Brown Direct Modulation of Phospholipase D Activity by Gbeta{gamma} Mol. Pharmacol., July 1, 2006; 70(1): 311 - 318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Mayeenuddin, W. E. McIntire, and J. C. Garrison Differential Sensitivity of P-Rex1 to Isoforms of G Protein beta{gamma} Dimers J. Biol. Chem., January 27, 2006; 281(4): 1913 - 1920. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. H. Mayeenuddin and J. C. Garrison Phosphorylation of P-Rex1 by the Cyclic AMP-dependent Protein Kinase Inhibits the Phosphatidylinositiol (3,4,5)-Trisphosphate and Gbeta{gamma}-mediated Regulation of Its Activity J. Biol. Chem., January 27, 2006; 281(4): 1921 - 1928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Yoshizawa, T. Kawauchi, M. Sone, Y. V. Nishimura, M. Terao, K. Chihama, Y.-i. Nabeshima, and M. Hoshino Involvement of a Rac Activator, P-Rex1, in Neurotrophin-Derived Signaling and Neuronal Migration J. Neurosci., April 27, 2005; 25(17): 4406 - 4419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 280/6/4166    most recent M411262200v1 Submit a Letter to Editor Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hill, K. Articles by Stephens, L. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hill, K. Articles by Stephens, L. R. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?