Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

Many intracellular signaling pathways are composed of molecular switches, proteins that transition between two states— on and off . Typically, signaling is initiated when an external stimulus activates its cognate receptor that, in turn, causes downstream switches to transition from off to on using one of the following mechanisms: activation, in which the transition rate from the off state to the on state increases; derepression, in which the transition rate from the on state to the off state decreases; and concerted, in which activation and derepression operate simultaneously. We use mathematical modeling to compare these signaling mechanisms in terms of their dose–response curves, response times, and abilities to process upstream fluctuations. Our analysis elucidates several operating principles for molecular switches. First, activation increases the sensitivity of the pathway, whereas derepression decreases sensitivity. Second, activation generates response times that decrease with signal strength, whereas derepression causes response times to increase with signal strength. These opposing features allow the concerted mechanism to not only show dose–response alignment, but also to decouple the response time from stimulus strength. However, these potentially beneficial properties come at the expense of increased susceptibility to upstream fluctuations. We demonstrate that these operating principles also hold when the models are extended to include additional features, such as receptor removal, kinetic proofreading, and cascades of switches. In total, we show how the architecture of molecular switches govern their response properties. We also discuss the biological implications of our findings. 

Abstract The G‐protein complex is a cytoplasmic on–off molecular switch that is set by plasma membrane receptors that activate upon binding of its cognate extracellular agonist. In animals, the default setting is the “off” resting state, while in plants, the default state is constitutively “on” but repressed by a plasma membrane receptor‐like protein. De‐repression appears to involve specific phosphorylation of key elements of the G‐protein complex and possibly target proteins that are positioned downstream of this complex. To address this possibility, protein abundance and phosphorylation state are quantified in wild type and G‐protein deficient Arabidopsis roots in the unstimulated resting state. A total of 3246 phosphorylated and 8141 non‐modified protein groups are identified. It has been found that 428 phosphorylation sites decrease and 509 sites increase in abundance in the G‐protein quadrupole mutant lacking an operable G‐protein‐complex. Kinases with known roles in G‐protein signaling including MAP KINASE 6 and FERONIA are differentially phosphorylated along with many other proteins now implicated in the control of G‐protein signaling. Taken together, these datasets will enable the discovery of novel proteins and biological processes dependent on G‐protein signaling.