TY - JOUR
T1 - G protein selectivity is a determinant of RGS2 function
AU - Heximer, Scott P.
AU - Srinivasa, Sreesha P.
AU - Bernstein, Leah S.
AU - Bernard, Jennifer L.
AU - Linder, Maurine E.
AU - Hepler, John R.
AU - Blumer, Kendall J.
PY - 1999/11/26
Y1 - 1999/11/26
N2 - RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins are GTPase-activating proteins that attenuate signaling by heterotrimeric G proteins. Whether the biological functions of RGS proteins are governed by quantitative differences in GTPase-activating protein activity toward various classes of Gα subunits and how G protein selectivity is achieved by differences in RGS protein structure are largely unknown. Here we provide evidence indicating that the function of RGS2 is determined in part by differences in potency toward G(q) versus G(i) family members. RGS2 was 5-fold more potent than RGS4 as an inhibitor of G(q)-stimulated phosphoinositide hydrolysis in vivo. In contrast, RGS4 was 8-fold more potent than RGS2 as an inhibitor of G(i)- mediated signaling. RGS2 mutants were identified that display increased potency toward G(i) family members without affecting potency toward G(q). These mutations and the structure of RGS4-G(i)α1 complexes suggest that RGS2-G(i)α interaction is unfavorable in part because of the geometry of the switch I binding pocket of RGS2 and a potential interaction between the α8- α9 loop of RGS2 and αA of G(i) class α subunits. The results suggest that the function of RGS2 relative to other RGS family members is governed in part by quantitative differences in activity toward different classes of Gα subunits.
AB - RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins are GTPase-activating proteins that attenuate signaling by heterotrimeric G proteins. Whether the biological functions of RGS proteins are governed by quantitative differences in GTPase-activating protein activity toward various classes of Gα subunits and how G protein selectivity is achieved by differences in RGS protein structure are largely unknown. Here we provide evidence indicating that the function of RGS2 is determined in part by differences in potency toward G(q) versus G(i) family members. RGS2 was 5-fold more potent than RGS4 as an inhibitor of G(q)-stimulated phosphoinositide hydrolysis in vivo. In contrast, RGS4 was 8-fold more potent than RGS2 as an inhibitor of G(i)- mediated signaling. RGS2 mutants were identified that display increased potency toward G(i) family members without affecting potency toward G(q). These mutations and the structure of RGS4-G(i)α1 complexes suggest that RGS2-G(i)α interaction is unfavorable in part because of the geometry of the switch I binding pocket of RGS2 and a potential interaction between the α8- α9 loop of RGS2 and αA of G(i) class α subunits. The results suggest that the function of RGS2 relative to other RGS family members is governed in part by quantitative differences in activity toward different classes of Gα subunits.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033607789&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1074/jbc.274.48.34253
DO - 10.1074/jbc.274.48.34253
M3 - Article
C2 - 10567399
AN - SCOPUS:0033607789
SN - 0021-9258
VL - 274
SP - 34253
EP - 34259
JO - Journal of Biological Chemistry
JF - Journal of Biological Chemistry
IS - 48
ER -