Heterotrimeric GTP-binding proteins (G proteins), consisting of Gα, Gβ and Gγ subunits, transduce signals from a diverse range of extracellular stimuli, resulting in the regulation of numerous cellular and physiological functions in Eukaryotes. According to the classic G protein paradigm established in animal models, the bound guanine nucleotide on a Gα subunit, either guanosine diphosphate (GDP) or guanosine triphosphate (GTP) determines the inactive or active mode, respectively. In plants, there are two types of Gα subunits: canonical Gα subunits structurally similar to their animal counterparts and unconventional extra-large Gα subunits (XLGs) containing a C-terminal domain homologous to the canonical Gα along with an extended N-terminal domain. Both Gα and XLG subunits interact with Gβγ dimers and regulator of G protein signalling (RGS) protein. Plant G proteins are implicated directly or indirectly in developmental processes, stress responses, and innate immunity. It is established that despite the substantial overall similarity between plant and animal Gα subunits, they convey signalling differently including the mechanism by which they are activated. This review emphasizes the unique characteristics of plant Gα subunits and speculates on their unique signalling mechanisms.
more »
« less
Towards resolution of a paradox in plant G-protein signaling
Abstract G-proteins are molecular on–off switches that are involved in transmitting a variety of extracellular signals to their intracellular targets. In animal and yeast systems, the switch property is encoded through nucleotides: a GDP-bound state is the “off-state” and the GTP-bound state is the “on-state”. The G-protein cycle consists of the switch turning on through nucleotide exchange facilitated by a G-protein coupled receptor and the switch turning off through hydrolysis of GTP back to GDP, facilitated by a protein designated REGULATOR OF G SIGNALING 1 (RGS). In plants, G-protein signaling dramatically differs from that in animals and yeast. Despite stringent conservation of the nucleotide binding and catalytic structures over the 1.6 billion years that separate the evolution of plants and animals, genetic and biochemical data indicate that nucleotide exchange is less critical for this switch to operate in plants. Also, the loss of the single RGS protein in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) confers unexpectedly weaker phenotypes consistent with a diminished role for the G cycle, at least under static conditions. However, under dynamic conditions, genetic ablation of RGS in Arabidopsis results in a strong phenotype. We explore explanations to this conundrum by formulating a mathematical model that takes into account the accruing evidence for the indispensable role of phosphorylation in G-protein signaling in plants and that the G-protein cycle is needed to process dynamic signal inputs. We speculate that the plant G-protein cycle and its attendant components evolved to process dynamic signals through signaling modulation rather than through on–off, switch-like regulation of signaling. This so-called change detection may impart greater fitness for plants due to their sessility in a dynamic light, temperature, and pest environment.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10324160
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Plant Physiology
- Volume:
- 188
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0032-0889
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 807 to 815
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Heterotrimeric G-proteins regulate multiple aspects of plant growth, development, and response to biotic and abiotic stresses. While the core components of heterotrimeric G-proteins and their basic biochemistry are similar in plants and metazoans, key differences exist in their regulatory mechanisms. In particular, the activation mechanisms of plant G-proteins appear diverse and may include both canonical and novel modes. Classical G-protein-coupled receptor-like proteins exist in plants and interact with Gα proteins, but their ability to activate Gα by facilitating GDP to GTP exchange has not been demonstrated. Conversely, there is genetic and functional evidence that plant G-proteins interact with the highly prevalent receptor-like kinases (RLKs) and are phosphorylated by them. This suggests the exciting scenario that in plants the G-proteins integrate RLK-dependent signal perception at the plasma membrane with downstream effectors. Because RLKs are active kinases, it is also likely that the activity of plant G-proteins is regulated via phosphorylation/dephosphorylation rather than GTP–GDP exchange as in metazoans. This review discusses our current knowledge of the possible RLK-dependent regulatory mechanisms of plant G-protein signaling in the context of several biological systems and outlines the diversity that might exist in such regulation.more » « less
-
Cells polarize for growth, motion, or mating through regulation of membrane-bound small GTPases between active GTP-bound and inactive GDP-bound forms. Activators (GEFs, GTP exchange factors) and inhibitors (GAPs, GTPase activating proteins) provide positive and negative feedbacks. We show that a reaction–diffusion model on a curved surface accounts for key features of polarization of model organism fission yeast. The model implements Cdc42 membrane diffusion using measured values for diffusion coefficients and dissociation rates and assumes a limiting GEF pool (proteins Gef1 and Scd1), as in prior models for budding yeast. The model includes two types of GAPs, one representing tip-localized GAPs, such as Rga3; and one representing side-localized GAPs, such as Rga4 and Rga6, that we assume switch between fast and slow diffusing states. After adjustment of unknown rate constants, the model reproduces active Cdc42 zones at cell tips and the pattern of GEF and GAP localization at cell tips and sides. The model reproduces observed tip-to-tip oscillations with periods of the order of several minutes, as well as asymmetric to symmetric oscillations transitions (corresponding to NETO “new end take off”), assuming the limiting GEF amount increases with cell size.more » « less
-
more » « less
Summary Modulation of the active versus inactive forms of the Gα protein is critical for the signaling processes mediated by the heterotrimeric G‐protein complex. We have recently established that in Arabidopsis, the regulator of G‐protein signaling (
RGS 1) protein and a lipid‐hydrolyzing enzyme, phospholipase Dα1 (PLD α1), both act asGTP ase‐activity accelerating proteins (GAP s) for the Gα protein to attenuate its activity.RGS 1 andPLD α1 interact with each other, andRGS 1 inhibits the activity ofPLD α1 during regulation of a subset of responses. In this study, we present evidence that this regulation is bidirectional. Phosphatidic acid (PA ), a second messenger typically derived from the lipid‐hydrolyzing activity ofPLD α1, is a molecular target ofRGS 1.PA binds and inhibits theGAP activity ofRGS 1. A conserved lysine residue inRGS 1 (Lys259) is directly involved inRGS 1–PA binding. Introduction of thisRGS 1 protein variant in thergs1 mutant background makes plants hypersensitive to a subset of abscisic acid‐mediated responses. Our data point to the existence of negative feedback loops between these two regulatory proteins that precisely modulate the level of active Gα, consequently generating a highly controlled signal–response output. -
Introduction: Members of the Ras protein family are involved in sending signals through the human body to regulate processes including cell growth. Acting as a molecular switch, Ras alternates between its active and inactive states (“on” and “off”) depending on its binding to either GTP or GDP. Upon the introduction of a mutation, Ras becomes incapable of performing the GTP hydrolysis reaction at a controlled rate. This results in the protein remaining in the “on” state for prolonged periods of time, disturbing its role in the regulation of cell growth and causing tumors to form. In the genome of cancerous tumors, mutations that permanently activate Ras have been observed and analyzed at three distinct locations, one being Q61. Previous research1 shows how the Q61 residue contributes to the protein’s function by stabilizing the water molecule in the active site, but little research has been done studying the Y32 residue, which has also been implicated in the mechanism. This research investigates the role Y32 plays in activating Ras via introduction of a different amino acid and measurement of the mutated protein’s activity in the hydrolysis of GTP.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab534
