Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher.
Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.
-
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
-
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
-
In animals, endocytosis of a seven-transmembrane GPCR is mediated by arrestins to propagate or arrest cytoplasmic G protein–mediated signaling, depending on the bias of the receptor or ligand, which determines how much one transduction pathway is used compared to another. InArabidopsis thaliana, GPCRs are not required for G protein–coupled signaling because the heterotrimeric G protein complex spontaneously exchanges nucleotide. Instead, the seven-transmembrane protein AtRGS1 modulates G protein signaling through ligand-dependent endocytosis, which initiates derepression of signaling without the involvement of canonical arrestins. Here, we found that endocytosis of AtRGS1 initiated from two separate pools of plasma membrane: sterol-dependent domains and a clathrin-accessible neighborhood, each with a select set of discriminators, activators, and candidate arrestin-like adaptors. Ligand identity (either the pathogen-associated molecular pattern flg22 or the sugar glucose) determined the origin of AtRGS1 endocytosis. Different trafficking origins and trajectories led to different cellular outcomes. Thus, in this system, compartmentation with its associated signalosome architecture drives biased signaling.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)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.more » « less