MINIREVIEW
The Many Faces of G Protein Signaling*

Heidi E. HammDagger

From the Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Biological Chemistry, Northwestern University Institute for Neuroscience, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Illinois 60611

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Introduction
References

A large number of hormones, neurotransmitters, chemokines, local mediators, and sensory stimuli exert their effects on cells and organisms by binding to G protein-coupled receptors. More than a thousand such receptors are known, and more are being discovered all the time. Heterotrimeric G proteins transduce ligand binding to these receptors into intracellular responses, which underlie physiological responses of tissues and organisms. G proteins play important roles in determining the specificity and temporal characteristics of the cellular responses to signals. They are made up of alpha , beta , and gamma  subunits, and although there are many gene products encoding each subunit (20 alpha , 6 beta , and 12 gamma  gene products are known), four main classes of G proteins can be distinguished: Gs, which activates adenylyl cyclase; Gi, which inhibits adenylyl cyclase; Gq, which activates phospholipase C; and G12 and G13, of unknown function.

G proteins are inactive in the GDP-bound, heterotrimeric state and are activated by receptor-catalyzed guanine nucleotide exchange resulting in GTP binding to the alpha  subunit. GTP binding leads to dissociation of Galpha ·GTP from Gbeta gamma subunits and activation of downstream effectors by both Galpha ·GTP and free Gbeta gamma subunits. G protein deactivation is rate-limiting for turnoff of the cellular response and occurs when the Galpha subunit hydrolyzes GTP to GDP. The recent resolution of crystal structures of heterotrimeric G proteins in inactive and active conformations provides a structural framework for understanding their role as conformational switches in signaling pathways. As more and more novel pathways that use G proteins emerge, recognition of the diversity of regulatory mechanisms of G protein signaling is also increasing. The recent progress in the structure, mechanisms, and regulation of G protein signaling pathways is the subject of this review. Because of space considerations, I will concentrate mainly on recent studies; readers are directed to a number of excellent reviews that cover earlier studies.

    G Protein Structure

Galpha subunits contain two domains, a domain involved in binding and hydrolyzing GTP (the G domain) that is structurally identical to the superfamily of GTPases including small G proteins and elongation factors (1) and a unique helical domain that buries the GTP in the core of the protein (2, 3) (Fig. 1). The beta  subunit of heterotrimeric G proteins has a 7-membered beta -propeller structure based on its 7 WD-40 repeats (4-6). The gamma  subunit interacts with beta  through an N-terminal coiled coil and then all along the base of beta , making extensive contacts (Fig. 1). The beta  and gamma  subunits form a functional unit that is not dissociable except by denaturation. G protein activation by receptors leads to GTP binding on the Galpha subunit. The structural nature of the GTP-mediated switch on the Galpha subunit is a change in conformation of three flexible regions designated Switches I, II, and III to a well ordered, GTP-bound activated conformation with lowered affinity for Gbeta gamma (7) (Fig. 1). This leads to increased affinity of Galpha ·GTP for effectors, subunit dissociation, and generation of free Gbeta gamma that can activate a number of effectors.


View larger version (78K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Upon GTP binding to Galpha , the Gbeta -binding site is rearranged and the subunits dissociate. Ribbon diagrams of G protein subunits shown are the activated GTPgamma S-bound Galpha t subunit (A) and the inactive GDP-bound chimeric Galpha t/Galpha i subunit (B) (2, 5). Notice the N-terminal helix is visible only in the GDP-bound structure. The Galpha subunit is silver, and the bound nucleotides are magenta. The Gbeta contact sites on Galpha are indicated by space-filled residues. Polar residues are pink, hydrophobic residues are yellow, basic residues are blue, and acidic residues are red. The relative orientations of the beta  contact sites in the switch interface of Galpha t·GTPgamma S are very different from the Galpha ·GDP and result in decreased beta gamma binding. C, the Gbeta 1gamma 1 dimer (4). The Gbeta subunit, in metallic pink, forms a seven-bladed propeller structure that contains a water-filled pore. The Ggamma subunit, in blue, is an alpha -helical structure that lies along the bottom of Gbeta . The N termini of Gbeta and Ggamma form a parallel coiled coil. When the subunits dissociate, Gbeta gamma is free to activate a number of effectors as discussed in the text.

    Mechanism of Activation of G Proteins by Receptors

G protein-coupled receptors have a common body plan with seven transmembrane helices; the intracellular loops that connect these helices form the G protein-binding domain (Fig. 2). Although no high resolution structure of a G protein-coupled receptor has yet been determined, recently a low resolution electron diffraction structure of rhodopsin, a model G protein-coupled receptor, shows the position and orientation of the seven transmembrane alpha -helices (8, 9). Both mutagenesis and biochemical experiments with a variety of G protein-coupled receptors suggest that receptor activation by ligand binding causes changes in the relative orientations of transmembrane helices 3 and 6. These changes then affect the conformation of G protein-interacting intracellular loops of the receptor and thus uncover previously masked G protein-binding sites (10, 11) (reviewed in Ref. 12). When an activated receptor interacts with a heterotrimeric G protein, it induces GDP release from the G protein. It is thought that the receptor contact sites on the G protein are distant from the GDP-binding pocket, so the receptor must work "at a distance" to change the conformation of the protein (13). Because GDP is buried within the protein between the two domains of Galpha , this must necessarily involve changing some interdomain interactions. Upon GDP release and in the absence of GTP a stable complex between the activated receptor and the heterotrimer is formed. This so-called "empty pocket" conformation is of great interest, but its structure is as yet unknown.


View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Heterotrimeric G protein interactions with rhodopsin and the membrane lipid bilayer. The configuration of the alpha  helices of rhodopsin are from Schertler and Baldwin et al. (8, 9). Transmembrane helices 1, 5, 6, and 7 at the front of the rhodopsin form are light green whereas transmembrane helices 2, 3, 4 at the back are dark green. The 11-cis-retinal prosthetic group that forms a Schiff base linkage with Lys-296 is magenta, and the membrane bilayer is green. The structures of the intracellular and extracellular loops are not known and are hand drawn to show helix connectivity. The intracellular loops that interact with heterotrimeric G protein are orange (intracellular loop 3 and putative fourth intracellular loop connecting transmembrane alpha  helix 7 with the palmitoylation site) and brown (intracellular loop 2). The Galpha subunit is medium blue, the Gbeta subunit is pink, and the Ggamma is blue. The bound guanine nucleotide (GDP) is magenta. The receptor-binding surface of the G protein is rotated 20° toward the viewer. The receptor contacts on the heterotrimeric G protein discussed in the text are red and include amino acids 1-23 and 299-350 of Galpha , a contact site within amino acids 280-340 of Gbeta , and amino acids 60-71 of Ggamma . Rhodopsin is palmitylated at its C terminus, Galpha is myristoylated and/or palmitoylated at its N terminus, and Ggamma is farnesylated at its C terminus. The acyl groups on rhodopsin, Galpha , and Ggamma (cyan) are shown interacting with the membrane.

What are the regions on G proteins that contact receptors, and how does G protein activation occur? The conformation of the GDP-bound heterotrimeric G proteins Gt and Gi (5, 6) shows the overall shape of the GDP-bound heterotrimer and the residues on the surface that can interact with other proteins and provides the structural context for understanding a variety of biochemical and mutagenesis studies of receptor-interacting regions on G proteins. The N-terminal region of the alpha  subunit and the C-terminal region of the gamma  subunit are both sites of lipid modification (reviewed in Ref. 14). These lipidated regions are relatively close together in the heterotrimer, suggesting a site of membrane attachment. There is good evidence for receptor contact surfaces on all three subunits.

On the alpha  subunit, the best characterized receptor contact region is at the C terminus (reviewed in Refs. 13 and 15). The last 7 amino acids of the alpha  subunit are disordered in the heterotrimer crystal structures, and analysis of receptor-binding peptides selected from a combinatorial peptide library shows that these 7 residues are the most critical (16). Studies using chimeric Galpha subunits confirm that in fact the last 5 residues contribute importantly to specificity of receptor G protein interaction. Elegant mutagenesis studies have shown that the C terminus of the third intracellular loop of receptors binds to this C-terminal region on Galpha subunits. In the case of M2 muscarinic receptor coupling to Gi, the exact residues of the receptor that are critical for recognizing the C terminus of Galpha i/o have been elucidated (Val-385, Thr-386, Ile-389, and Leu-390) (17).

A larger region of the C-terminal region of Galpha subunits, as well as the N-terminal helix, has been implicated in receptor contact. Alanine-scanning mutagenesis of Galpha t (18) and analysis of residues conserved in subclasses of G protein alpha  subunits (19) both identify a number of residues in the C-terminal 50 amino acids of Galpha t that contact rhodopsin. Arg-310 located at the alpha 4-beta 6 loop of Galpha t is completely blocked from tryptic proteolysis in the presence of light-activated rhodopsin, suggesting that the alpha 4-beta 6 loop region contributes to receptor contact (20). The alpha 4-beta 6 loop has also been implicated in specific interaction of the 5HT1B serotonin receptor with Galpha i1 as well as in receptor-catalyzed Gi activation (21).

It is clear that the beta gamma subunits of heterotrimeric G proteins enhance receptor interaction with alpha  subunits (reviewed in Ref. 15). Single Ala mutations in residues of the beta  subunit that contact the alpha  subunit block receptor-mediated GTP/GDP exchange.1 This suggests that the beta  subunit must hold the alpha  subunit rigidly in place for GDP release to occur. Direct binding interactions between receptor and beta gamma subunit have been reported (24-26). A cross-linking study demonstrated that the C-terminal 60-amino acid region of Gbeta can be cross-linked to an alpha 2-adrenergic receptor peptide corresponding to the intracellular third loop of the receptor (24). In addition, the C-terminal region of the gamma  subunit of G proteins has been shown to be involved in receptor coupling and specificity (25, 26).

    Mechanisms of Effector Activation

Upon GTP binding to the alpha  subunit, the alpha ·GTP (a*) and beta gamma subunits dissociate (5, 7). In the GTP-bound, active conformation, a new surface is formed on Galpha * subunits (27), and they interact with effectors with 20-100-fold higher affinity than in their GDP-bound state. The various Galpha *s interact in a highly specific manner with the well studied, classical effector enzymes through this surface. Galpha *s activates (and Galpha *i inhibits) adenylyl cyclase, Galpha *t activates photoreceptor cGMP phosphodiesterase, and Galpha *q activates phospholipase C-beta . However, this conserved switch surface on Galpha subunits does not explain the exquisite specificity of G protein alpha  subunit effector interaction. A chimeric Galpha t/Galpha i approach identified two other regions that underlie the specific interaction of Galpha t with phosphodiesterase gamma  (27). Similar regions are involved in effector interaction of Galpha q with PLC2 (80) and Galpha s with adenylyl cyclase (AC) (reviewed in Ref. 15).

    Novel alpha  Targets

The major classes of Galpha s, the Gs, Gi, and Gq families of alpha  subunits, have well known cellular targets. More recently yeast two-hybrid screening has uncovered new targets. GAIP, a Galpha -interacting protein and a member of the RGS family of GTPase-activating proteins (reviewed in Ref. 28), was first identified in this way; and recently two more putative alpha  targets, nucleobindin (29) and a novel LGN repeat protein (30), were described by Insel and co-workers. So far, no physiological role of the latter two Galpha targets has been determined.

Other effectors of G protein alpha  subunits are being discovered. For example, Galpha q directly stimulates the activity of Bruton's tyrosine kinase in vitro as well as in vivo in lymphoma cells (31). Two Galpha subunits without known effectors are Galpha 12 and Galpha 13. They are reported to couple to thrombin, thromboxane, and angiotensin receptors (32). The cellular effects of mutant constitutively activated forms of these G proteins have been studied, and it is well established that they can regulate Na+/H+ exchange (33). They are involved in bradykinin activation of voltage-dependent Ca2+ channels via activation of Rac and Cdc42 (34). To understand the biological roles of Galpha 13, knockout mice were produced (35). Homozygous Galpha 13 (-/-) mice were never found, and although embryos were normal at embryonic day 8.5, they were resorbed before embryonic day 10.5. It appeared that lack of Galpha 13 led to an impaired angiogenesis of endothelial cells and caused inability to develop an organized vascular system. In addition, Galpha 13 (-/-) embryonic fibroblasts showed greatly impaired migratory responses to thrombin, suggesting that chemotaxis was impaired. Interestingly, although Galpha 12 shares 67% amino acid identity to Galpha 13, it cannot substitute for Galpha 13.

    beta gamma Targets

Once Galpha ·GTP has dissociated from Gbeta gamma , free beta gamma is an activator of a dizzying array of proteins, and the list continues to increase (see Ref. 36 for review). Significantly, the conformation of free Gbeta gamma is identical to Gbeta gamma in the heterotrimer (4), suggesting that Galpha inhibits Gbeta gamma interactions with its effectors through the Galpha -binding site on Gbeta .1 Evidence for this comes from the laboratory of Iyengar and co-workers (37), who found a peptide from ACII that bound to Gbeta gamma and blocked its activation of various effectors, suggesting that part of the effector binding site is shared between ACII, G protein-activated inward rectifier K+ channel (GIRK), and PLCbeta . Cross-linking and docking experiments localized the binding site to a part of the Galpha -binding region (38). Besides the Galpha -binding region, other regions of Gbeta gamma subunits that have been implicated in effector interaction include the N-terminal coiled coil (39, 40) and blades 1 and 7 of the beta -propeller of Gbeta (41, 42).

Gbeta gamma has well defined effects on some isoforms of the classical second messenger enzymes, PLCbeta 2 and -beta 3 (reviewed by Ref. 43) and AC (Gbeta gamma stimulates Galpha s-activated ACII, -IV, and -VII whereas it inhibits ACI (44)). It also recruits the beta -adrenergic receptor kinase to the membrane where the kinase phosphorylates activated beta -adrenergic receptors. It binds to the phosphoprotein phosducin, which is thought to sequester beta gamma and thereby regulate its availability via a cAMP-dependent protein kinase-regulated mechanism. Phosducin-like proteins have also been shown to bind to Gbeta gamma (45). Elucidation of the crystal structure of the phosducin-Gbeta gamma complex showed that there is a shared surface on the top of Gbeta gamma for interaction with Galpha and phosducin but that a second site of interaction occurs between phosducin's C terminus and beta -propeller blades 1 and 7 at the side of Gbeta gamma (46). Interestingly, the phosphorylation site on phosducin, which regulates its affinity with Gbeta gamma , is far from the protein-protein interface.

In addition, Gbeta gamma serves as the direct activator of certain G protein-responsive K+, Ca2+, and perhaps also Na+ channels (for reviews, see Refs. 36, 47, and 48). IKACh is the inwardly rectifying K+ channel responsible for slowing heart beat in response to the parasympathetic transmitter acetylcholine. It is a homo- or heteromultimer of GIRK (49) monomers found in the heart and brain. Gbeta gamma subunits bind the N- and C-terminal intracellular domains of GIRKs and directly activate them (49-51). The Gbeta gamma subunit similarly plays an important modulatory role in certain presynaptic Ca2+ channels (52, 53), especially alpha 1A, alpha 1B, and to a lesser extent alpha 1E but not alpha 1C, alpha 1D, or alpha 1S isoforms (47). It has been shown that Gbeta gamma inhibits Ca2+ channel current by directly contacting two regions on Ca2+ channel alpha 1 subunits: the intracellular I-II loop (55, 56) and the C terminus (57, 58).

Gbeta gamma also directly activates more than one phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase isoform (59). There is a unique Gbeta gamma -responsive phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, P110gamma , that does not have a p85 subunit or the N-terminal p85-binding region on the catalytic subunit (60, 61). Gbeta gamma has also been reported to activate a number of kinases as well, for example, the Raf1 protein kinase (62) and Bruton and Tsk tyrosine kinases (63).

In yeast, Gbeta gamma is the activator of a pheromone-stimulated MAP kinase pathway. It is known to bind to the N-terminal region of the scaffold protein Ste5 in yeast (64). Recently, Thorner and co-workers (65) showed that Ste5 contains a homodimerization domain, which is required for beta  binding. They demonstrated that Gbeta gamma interaction leads to oligomerization of this domain on Ste5. Most interestingly, dimerization of this domain by making a glutathione S-transferase fusion protein of Ste5 leads to Gbeta gamma -independent activation of the MAP kinase cascade. Recently, yeast Gbeta gamma was also shown to activate Cdc24, the exchange factor for the Rho-type GTPase Cdc42 (66). Gbeta gamma has also been reported to bind to other members of the Rho family of GTPases, Rho and Rac (67), as well as to the small G protein Arf (ADP-ribosylation factor), which is involved in coat formation and vesicular trafficking (68).

Given this very rich and expanding list of Gbeta gamma effectors and effector activation mechanisms, a number of key questions are posed for future investigation. Under what physiological situations are the various effectors activated, and what are the constraints that keep all of these effectors from being activated at the same time? Does more than one G protein-coupled signaling pathway need to be activated for enough Gbeta gamma to be generated to cause activation of these effectors? What is the specificity of Gbeta gamma effector interactions and what is the mechanism by which effector activation occurs? And finally what is the turnoff mechanism?

    Determinants for Gbeta gamma Effector Interaction

There are multiple genes for Gbeta and Ggamma , and most Gbeta gamma pairs can form functional Gbeta gamma s (reviewed in Ref. 36). One of the first questions that was posed was whether different Gbeta gamma s regulated different effectors. The answer from a large number of biochemical experiments was: not much. Gbeta 1gamma 1 is better than the others at interacting with rhodopsin and phosducin in photoreceptor cells and somewhat worse than all the other Gbeta gamma pairs at interacting with other effectors. One series of studies that showed selectivity of Gbeta gamma pairs at interacting with receptors and effectors was done using antisense oligonucleotides to suppress the translation of particular proteins, and these studies showed a very high degree of selectivity (see below). Other evidence of specificity, using different techniques, is slowly emerging. Gbeta 5, a recently discovered Gbeta subunit found in the central nervous system (69), differentially couples to two MAP kinase pathways (54).

Because Galpha can inhibit all the actions of Gbeta gamma , the Galpha -binding residues are candidate effector activation determinants. We have tested this idea by singly mutating the 15 Galpha -binding residues of Gbeta to alanines, and in all effectors that have been examined, some of the mutants no longer activate the effector.2 In each effector interaction, however, different residues clustered on the surface of Gbeta are critical, suggesting a mechanism whereby a unique contact surface of Gbeta can make specific interactions with a number of different effectors. Interestingly, in some cases, removing the side chain increases the potency of the mutant Gbeta gamma to activate an effector.

    Specificity of Signaling Defined by Molecular Interactions

The complexity of signal transduction events in cells that are receiving and processing multiple signals is the subject of intense research. Some of the key questions are: 1) how much specificity is encoded in the direct protein-protein interactions; 2) are there other levels of cellular organization that impart specificity; and 3) what are the mechanisms of cross-regulation resulting in the final integrated cellular response?

It is well known that multiple receptors can converge on a single G protein, and in many cases a single receptor can activate more than one G protein and thereby modulate multiple intracellular signals. In other cases, it seems that interaction of a single receptor with a given G protein is regulated by a high degree of selectivity imparted by specific heterotrimers. A number of excellent reviews describing the determinants of specific receptor-G protein interaction have recently appeared (12, 13, 70-72). Earlier in vitro studies of receptor-G protein interaction were often characterized by high promiscuity of receptor-G protein interaction, but a number of recent studies demonstrate that some receptors discriminate even between related G proteins within the same family.

In situ there can sometimes be high specificity. How is it achieved? The most exquisite specificity of receptor coupling to intracellular pathways by G proteins in vivo has been demonstrated using antisense oligonucleotides to suppress translation of specific G protein subunits. This technique allows suppression of distinct components involved in the signal transduction pathway and examination of any subsequent impaired cellular responses. Kleuss et al. (73) showed that inhibition of calcium channels by somatostatin receptors in the GH3 cell is mediated by Galpha o2beta 1gamma 3, whereas inhibition by M4 muscarinic receptors is mediated by Galpha o1beta 1gamma 4. The elimination of Galpha o by antisense technique abolishes somatostatin, M4 muscarinic, or D2 dopamine receptor-mediated inhibition of calcium entry in rat pituitary GH4C1 cells (74). By contrast, depletion of Galpha i2 selectively impairs receptor-mediated inhibition of cAMP accumulation in the same system. Another antisense study indicates that the M1 muscarinic receptor utilizes a specific G protein complex composed of Galpha q/11beta 1/4gamma 4 to activate phospholipase C (75). A recent study showed coupling of angiotensin II AT1A receptors to regulation of Ca2+ channels, calcium-induced calcium release channels, and Na+/H+ exchange is via alpha 13beta 1gamma 3 (76). This level of specificity is not seen in vitro or in transfection studies using overexpressed proteins. This raises the question of how targeting proteins or other cellular mechanisms can achieve high specificity.

    Limiting the Repertoire of Signaling Outcomes

A number of organizing and targeting proteins and cellular structures are candidates for a role in specifying protein interactions in G protein signaling cascades. Another potential regulator of G protein specificity is targeted inactivation of a G protein by a GTPase-activating protein (discussed in Ref. 28). In yeast, Ste5 is a scaffold protein that organizes the MAP kinase sequential enzyme cascade and contributes to specificity and fidelity of signaling (77). No mammalian homolog of Ste5 has been found. A particularly interesting possible scaffold for G protein-coupled signal transduction molecules is the growing family of PDZ domain-containing proteins, so named for the three proteins that contain them, postsynaptic density protein 95 (P), Drosophila discs large tumor suppressor (D), and zona occludens protein (Z) (for review see Ref. 23). An unusual PDZ domain containing protein in Drosophila photoreceptors called InaD has 5 PDZ domains, each of which bind different signaling molecules of the Gq-regulated visual cascade including rhodopsin, PLCbeta , protein kinase C, and the transient receptor potential protein (Trp), a homologue of the calcium-induced calcium release channel (23, 78, 79). Notably, Gq was missing from the complex. Another unusual PDZ domain-containing protein, Homer, contains a single PDZ domain, which binds to certain G protein-coupled metabotropic glutamate receptors in the brain (22). Other scaffold proteins are characterized by having multiple conserved domains such as phosphotyrosine-recognizing Src homology 2 (SH2) domains, SH3 domains, pleckstrin homology domains, Dbl homology domains, and domains with enzymatic activities, particularly activity controlling the GTP binding state of small G proteins such as guanine nucleotide exchange and GTPase-activating protein activity. Future studies may reveal more scaffolding or clustering mechanisms that may greatly increase the specificity of in vivo signal transduction by heterotrimeric G proteins.

    Summary

Progress in areas of research that once might have seemed distant from the field of G protein signaling now shows that G proteins are involved in a broad range of cellular regulatory activities. The understanding of how the proteins interact (receptors, G proteins, and effectors, as well as other regulatory proteins) thus has enormous implications for physiology. The rapid progress in determining three-dimensional structures of G proteins, and more recently their regulators and effectors, has illuminated the search for mechanisms of activation and regulation and has allowed structure-based mutagenesis to test these ideas. The structural and mechanistic studies will in the future also hopefully provide opportunities to alter those interactions in pathological situations.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I acknowledge Carolyn Ford for careful reading of the manuscript and help preparing the figures.

    FOOTNOTES

* This minireview will be reprinted in the 1997 Minireview Compendium, which will be available in December, 1997. This is the first article of three in the "Signaling by Heterotrimeric G Proteins Minireview Series."

Dagger To whom correspondence should be addressed: 5-555 Searle, Northwestern University Medical School, 320 E. Superior, Chicago, IL 60611. Tel.: 312-503-1109; Fax: 312-503-7345; E-mail: h-hamm{at}nwu.edu.

1 C. E. Ford, N. P. Skiba, H. Bae, Y. Daaka, E. Reuveny, L. R. Shekter, R. Rosal, G. Weng, C. S. Yang, R. Iyengar, R. J. Miller, L. Y. Jan, R. J. Lefkowitz, and H. E. Hamm, submitted for publication.

2 The abbreviations used are: PLC, phospholipase C; AC, adenylyl cyclase; GIRK, G protein-activated inward rectifier K+ channel; MAP, mitogen-activated protein; GTPgamma S, guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate.

    REFERENCES
Top
Introduction
References

  1. Kjeldgaard, M., Nyborg, J., and Clark, B. F. (1996) FASEB J. 10, 1347-1368[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Noel, J. P., Hamm, H. E., and Sigler, P. B. (1993) Nature 366, 654-663[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Coleman, D. E., Berghuis, A. M., Lee, E., Linder, M. E., Gilman, A. G., Sprang, S. R. (1994) Science 269, 1405-1412
  4. Sondek, J., Bohm, A., Lambright, D., Hamm, H., and Sigler, P. (1996) Nature 379, 369-374[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Lambright, D., Sondek, J., Bohm, A., Skiba, N., Hamm, H., and Sigler, P. (1996) Nature 379, 311-319[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Wall, M., Coleman, D., Lee, E., Iniguez-Lluhi, J., Posner, B., Gilman, A., and Sprang, S. (1995) Cell 83, 1047-1058[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Lambright, D. G., Noel, J. P., Hamm, H. E., Sigler, P. B. (1994) Nature 369, 621-628[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Unger, V., Hargrave, P., Baldwin, J., and Schertler, G. (1997) Nature 389, 203-206[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Baldwin, J., Schertler, G., and Unger, V. (1997) J. Mol. Biol. 272, 144-164[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Altenbach, C., Yang, K., Farrens, D., Farahbakhsh, Z., Khorana, H., and Hubbell, W. (1996) Biochemistry 35, 12470-12478[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Farrens, D., Altenbach, C., Yang, K., Hubbell, W., and Khorana, H. (1996) Science 274, 768-770[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Wess, J. (1997) FASEB J. 11, 346-354[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Bourne, H. (1997) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 9, 134-142[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  14. Resh, M. (1996) Cell Signal 8, 403-412[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  15. Sprang, S. R. (1997) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 66, 639-678[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Martin, E. L., Rens-Domiano, S., Schatz, P. J., Hamm, H. E. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 361-366[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Kostenis, E., Conklin, B. R., and Wess, J. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 1487-1495[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Onrust, R., Herzmark, P., Chi, P., Garcia, P., Lichtarge, O., Kingsley, C., and Bourne, H. (1997) Science 275, 381-384[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Lichtarge, O., Bourne, H., and Cohen, F. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 7507-7511[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Mazzoni, M., and Hamm, H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 30034-30040[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Bae, H., Anderson, K., Flood, L. A., Skiba, N. P., Hamm, H. E., Graber, S. G. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 32071-32077[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Brakeman, P., Lanahan, A., O'Brien, R., Roche, K., Barnes, C., Huganir, R., and Worley, P. (1997) Nature 386, 284-288[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  23. Tsunoda, S., Sierralta, J., Sun, Y., Bodner, R., Suzuki, E., Becker, A., Socolich, M., and Zuker, C. (1997) Nature 388, 243-249[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  24. Taylor, J., Jacob-Mosier, G., Lawton, R., VanDort, M., and Neubig, R. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 3336-3339[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Kisselev, O., Pronin, A., Ermolaeva, M., and Gautam, N. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 9102-9106[Abstract]
  26. Yasuda, H., Lindorfer, M., Woodfork, K., Fletcher, J., and Garrison, J. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 18588-18595[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Skiba, N. P., Bae, H., and Hamm, H. E. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 413-424[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Berman, D., and Gilman, A. (1998) J. Biol. Chem. 273, 1269-1272[Free Full Text]
  29. Mochizuki, N., Hibi, M., Kanai, Y., and Insel, P. (1995) FEBS Lett. 373, 155-158[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Mochizuki, N., Cho, G., Wen, B., and Insel, P. (1996) Gene (Amst.) 181, 39-43[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Bence, K., Ma, W., Kozasa, T., and Huang, X. (1997) Nature 389, 296-299[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Barr, A., Brass, L., and Manning, D. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2223-2229[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Hooley, R., Yu, C., Symons, M., and Barber, D. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 6152-6158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Wilk-Blaszczak, M., Singer, W., Quill, T., Miller, B., Frost, J., Sternweis, P., and Belardetti, F. (1997) J. Neurosci. 17, 4094-4100[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Offermanns, S., Mancino, V., Revel, J., and Simon, M. (1997) Science 275, 533-536[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Clapham, D., and Neer, E. (1997) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 37, 167-203[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  37. Chen, J., DeVivo, M., Dingus, J., Harry, A., Li, J., Sui, J., Carty, D., Blank, J., Exton, J., Stoffel, R., Inglese, J., Lefkowitz, R., Logothetis, D., Hildebrandt, J., and Iyengar, R. (1995) Science 268, 1166-1169[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Chen, Y., Weng, G., Li, J., Harry, A., Pieroni, J., Dingus, J., Hildebrandt, J., Guarnieri, F., Weinstein, H., and Iyengar, R. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 2711-2714[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Yan, K., and Gautam, N. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 2056-2059[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Pellegrino, S., Zhang, S., Garritsen, A., and Simonds, W. F. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 25360-25366[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Yamauchi, J., Kaziro, Y., and Itoh, H. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 7602-7607[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Blüml, K., Schnepp, W., Schröder, S., Beyermann, M., Macias, M., Oschkinat, H., and Lohse, M. (1997) EMBO J. 16, 4908-4915[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Morris, A., and Scarlata, S. (1997) Biochem. Pharmacol. 54, 429-435[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  44. Sunahara, R., Dessauer, C., and Gilman, A. (1996) Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 36, 461-480[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  45. Thibault, C., Sganga, M., and Miles, M. (1997) J. Biol. Chem 272, 12253-12256[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Gaudet, R., Bohm, A., and Sigler, P. (1996) Cell 87, 577-588[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Schneider, T., Igelmund, P., and Hescheler, J. (1997) Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 18, 8-11[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  48. Jan, L., and Jan, Y. (1997) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 9, 155-160[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  49. Krapivinsky, G., Gordon, E., Wickman, K., Velimirovic, B., Krapivinsky, L., and Clapham, D. (1995) Nature 374, 135-141[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Huang, C., Slesinger, P., Casey, P., Jan, Y., and Jan, L. (1995) Neuron 15, 1133-1143[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Kunkel, M., and Peralta, E. (1995) Cell 83, 443-449[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  52. Ikeda, S. (1996) Nature 380, 255-258[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  53. Herlitze, S., Hockerman, G., Scheuer, T., and Catterall, W. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 1512-1516[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  54. Zhang, S., Coso, O., Lee, C., Gutkind, J., and Simonds, W. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 33575-33579[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  55. Page, K., Stephens, G., Berrow, N., and Dolphin, A. (1997) J. Neurosci. 17, 1330-1338[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. De Waard, M., Liu, H., Walker, D., Scott, V., Gurnett, C., and Campbell, K. (1997) Nature 385, 446-450[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  57. Zhang, J., Ellinor, P., Aldrich, R., and Tsien, R. (1996) Neuron 17, 991-1003[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  58. Qin, N., Platano, D., Olcese, R., Stefani, E., and Birnbaumer, L. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 8866-8871[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Tang, X., and Downes, C. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 14193-14199[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Stephens, L. R., Eguinoa, A., Erdjument-Bromage, H., Lui, M., Cooke, F., Coadwell, J., Amrcka, A. S., Thelen, M., Cadwallader, K., Tempst, P., Hawkins, P. T. (1997) Cell 89, 105-114[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  61. Stoyanov, B., Volinia, S., Hanck, T., Rubio, I., Loubtchenkov, M., Malek, D., Stoyanova, S., Vanhaesebroeck, B., Dhand, R., Nurnberg, B., et al.. (1995) Science 269, 690-693[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  62. Pumiglia, K., LeVine, H., Haske, T., Habib, T., Jove, R., and Decker, S. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 14251-14254[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Langhans-Rajasekaran, S. A., Wan, Y., and Huang, X. Y. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 8601-8605[Abstract]
  64. Whiteway, M., Wu, C., Leeuw, T., Clark, K., Fourest-Lieuvin, A., Thomas, D., and Leberer, E. (1995) Science 269, 1572-1575[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  65. Inouye, C., Dhillon, N., and Thorner, J. (1997) Science 278, 103-106[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  66. Simon, M., De Virgilio, C., Souza, B., Pringle, J., Abo, A., and Reed, S. (1995) Nature 376, 702-705[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  67. Harhammer, R., Gohla, A., and Schultz, G. (1996) FEBS Lett. 399, 211-214[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  68. Franco, M., Paris, S., and Chabre, M. (1995) FEBS Lett. 362, 286-290[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  69. Watson, A., Aragay, A., Slepak, V., and Simon, M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 28154-28160[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  70. Raymond, J. (1995) Am. J. Physiol. 269, F141-F158[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  71. Gudermann, T., Schoneberg, T., and Schultz, G. (1997) Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 20, 399-427[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  72. Hildebrandt, J. (1997) Biochem. Pharmacol. 54, 325-339[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  73. Kleuss, C., Scherubl, H., Hescheler, J., Schultz, G., and Wittig, B. (1993) Science 259, 832-834[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  74. Liu, Y., Jakobs, K., Rasenick, M., and Albert, P. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 13880-13886[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  75. Dippel, E., Kalkbrenner, F., Wittig, B., and Schultz, G. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 1391-1396[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  76. Macrez-Lepretre, N., Kalkbrenner, F., Morel, J., Schultz, G., and Mironneau, J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 10095-10102[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  77. Errede, B., Cade, R., Yashar, B., Kamada, Y., Levin, D., Irie, K., and Matsumoto, K. (1995) Mol. Reprod. Dev. 42, 477-485[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  78. Shieh, B., and Zhu, M. (1996) Neuron 16, 991-998[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  79. Huber, A., Sander, P., Gobert, A., Bahner, M., Hermann, R., and Paulsen, R. (1996) EMBO J. 15, 7036-7045[Abstract]
  80. Venkatakrishnan, G., and Exton, J. H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 5066-5072[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 1998 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.