Selective Uncoupling of RGS Action by a Single Point Mutation in the G Protein alpha -Subunit*

Paul R. DiBelloDagger §, Tiffany Runyan GarrisonDagger , Donald M. Apanovitchpar , Ginger Hoffman**, David J. ShueyDagger Dagger , Kimberly Mason§§, Mark I. CockettDagger Dagger , and Henrik G. Dohlman¶¶

From the Department of Pharmacology, Boyer Center for Molecular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut 06536 and the Dagger Dagger  Department of Central Nervous System Disorders and §§ Department of Structural Biology, Wyeth-Ayerst Research, CN8000, Princeton, New Jersey 08543

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Procedures
Results & Discussion
References

Heterotrimeric G proteins function as molecular relays, shuttling between cell surface receptors and intracellular effectors that propagate a signal. G protein signaling is governed by the rates of GTP binding (catalyzed by the receptor) and GTP hydrolysis. RGS proteins (regulators of G protein signaling) were identified as potent negative regulators of G protein signaling pathways in simple eukaryotes and are now known to act as GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) for G protein alpha -subunits in vitro. It is not known, however, if Galpha GAP activity is responsible for the regulatory action of RGS proteins in vivo. We describe here a Galpha mutant in yeast (gpa1sst) that phenotypically mimics the loss of its cognate RGS protein (SST2). The gpa1sst mutant is resistant to an activated allele of SST2 in vivo and is unresponsive to RGS GAP activity in vitro. The analogous mutation in a mammalian Gqalpha is also resistant to RGS action in transfected cells. These mutants demonstrate that RGS proteins act through Galpha and that RGS-GAP activity is responsible for their desensitizing activity in cells. The Galpha sst mutant will be useful for uncoupling RGS-mediated regulation from other modes of signal regulation in whole cells and animals.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Procedures
Results & Discussion
References

A wide variety of cellular signals (hormones, neurotransmitters, light, odors) act through a three component system composed of cell surface receptors, heterotrimeric G proteins, and effector proteins (1). The mating pheromones in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae act through receptors (STE2, STE3 gene products), a G protein alpha beta gamma heterotrimer (GPA1, STE4, STE18), and a mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling cascade that promotes cell division arrest and fusion (2). If mating is unsuccessful, however, the cells become refractory to pheromone stimulation and will eventually resume normal growth.

RGS1 proteins have recently been identified as a fourth component of the G protein signaling pathway (2, 3). The founding member of the RGS family, called SST2, was identified in a genetic screen for negative regulators of the pheromone response pathway in yeast (4). Loss of function sst2 mutants render cells supersensitive to a pheromone stimulus and unable to recover from pheromone-induced growth arrest. Dominant gain-of-function alleles of SST2 have the opposite effect, rendering cells insensitive to pheromone stimulation (5). Further genetic and biochemical experiments revealed that Sst2 interacts directly with the G protein alpha -subunit, Gpa1 (6).

Behavioral genetic analyses in C. elegans uncovered a homologue of Sst2, called EGL-10 (7). egl-10 was shown to negatively regulate goa-1, which encodes the Galpha that mediates serotonin-dependent egg laying behavior. Two mammalian homologues, GAIP and RGS10, were identified by their interaction with Galpha -subunits in a two-hybrid screen (8, 9). An additional 15 mammalian members of the family were found by expression cloning, degenerate polymerase chain reaction, low stringency hybridization, and as expressed sequence tags (7-11). All of the RGS proteins share a conserved "RGS core domain" of ~120 amino acids, with >20% sequence identity across all species. Several RGS proteins have also been shown to attenuate G protein signaling in cultured cells (12-15) and to partially substitute for the loss of SST2 expression in yeast (10, 12, 15).

RGS proteins were later shown to function as GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) for Galpha -subunits in vitro (9, 11, 16-22).2 These findings suggest that RGS proteins negatively regulate signaling via their physical association with Galpha -subunits. By enhancing the rate of Galpha GTP hydrolysis, RGS proteins would shorten the lifetime of the active G protein species and arrest signaling.

Does RGS GAP activity account for the negative regulatory properties of these proteins in vivo? Proving this model would require that RGS knockout mutants, and Galpha mutants that disrupt RGS interaction, exhibit the same phenotype. RGS mutations have been obtained in yeast and nematodes, but not in mammals. Indeed, constructing knockout mutants in mammals will be complicated by the fact that there are so many closely related (and possibly redundant) RGS isoforms. An RGS-insensitive Galpha mutant has not been reported in any system.

Here, we report the identification and characterization of a yeast Galpha mutation that specifically disrupts Sst2 regulation in vivo and in vitro. An analogous mutation in Gqalpha is similarly insensitive to RGS action in cultured cells. An RGS-uncoupled Galpha mutation proves that Galpha is the primary target of RGS in cells. Galpha mutants of this type will be extremely useful for determining the overall contribution of RGS proteins to signal regulation in vivo.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Procedures
Results & Discussion
References

Strains, Plasmids, and Antibodies-- Established methods were used for the growth and genetic manipulation of yeast and bacteria (23). Escherichia coli strain DH10B was used for the maintenance of plasmids; strain BL21 (DE3) was used for expression of recombinant Gpa1 and RGS. S. cerevisiae strains used in this study were: YHD436 (MATa ura3-52 lys2-801am ade2-101oc trp1-Delta 63 his3-Delta 200 leu2-Delta 1 bar1::hisG mfalpha 1Delta mfalpha 2::hisG FUS1-LacZ-URA3) for mutagenesis and screening, YGS5 (24) or YRGS5 (YGS5, sst2-Delta 2) (24) for halo assays, and BJ2168 (25) for purification of Sst2-GST. Yeast expression plasmids were pRS315, pRS316, pAD4M, pRS315-GPA1, pAD4M-GPA1, pRS315-gpa1sst, pAD4M-gpa1sst (24), pRS315-SST2, pRS315-SST2-1 (5), pAD4M-GST (24), 5HT2c, and RGS7 (38). pcDNAamp-Gqsst was constucted by oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis in pcDNAamp-GqEE2 (26) (Altered Sites, Promega). pAD4M-SST2-GST was provided by K. Blumer, Washington University. Antibodies to Gpa1 (27), EE (Babco), and GST (J. Steitz, Yale University) are described elsewhere. Molecular modeling of the Gi1alpha -GDP-AlF4-/RGS4 complex (23) (PDB accession number 1AGR) was performed using SYBYL (Tripos, St. Louis, MO).

Mutagenesis Screening and Pheromone Assays-- YHD436 cells were mutagenized with ethyl methanesulfonate (Sigma) as described (28) and assayed for alpha -factor supersensitivity using a reporter gene (beta -galactosidase) assay on nitrocellulose colony lifts (29). A genomic DNA library in YCp50 was used for complementation cloning (ATCC 77162). The halo assay was performed as described (29).

Sst2-GST/Gpa1 Binding, GTPase Assays, and Mammalian Cell Culture Assays-- Sst2-GST binding experiments were performed as described (6) with the following modifications: 50 mM Hepes (pH 7.5) and 0.1% Tween were used instead of 40 mM triethanolamine and 1% Triton X-100. Washes were performed with binding buffer at various salt concentrations instead of in phosphate-buffered saline. Binding and wash buffers contained 5 mM MgCl2 and either 10 µM GDP or 10 µM GDP, 30 µM AlCl3, 10 mM NaF. Purification of recombinant Galpha and RGS proteins (>95% homogeneity), as well as guanine nucleotide binding and hydrolysis assays, were performed as described previously (19).2 Mammalian cell culture, transfections, and second messenger assays are described elsewhere (38). Data were analyzed using analysis of variance for a randomized block design, with log transformation, followed by pairwise comparisons employing the least significant difference method.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Procedures
Results & Discussion
References

In the course of a large scale genetic screen designed to identify new desensitization components in yeast, we isolated a novel allele of GPA1, designated gpa1sst (for supersensitive allele of gpa1). Sequencing revealed a single missense mutation resulting in a Gly-to-Ser substitution at position 302. This glycine is conserved among Galpha -subunit family members and is located in the first of three switch regions known to undergo a conformational change upon GTP hydrolysis (30-36).

Since the gpa1sst mutant mimics the loss of SST2, we investigated its ability to be regulated by SST2. First we compared the pheromone response in cells expressing GPA1 or gpa1sst, using the growth inhibition ("halo") assay (29). In SST2+ cells, the pheromone response through gpa1sst was potentiated compared with GPA1. In the absence of SST2, however, the wild type and mutant forms of Gpa1 responded equally (Fig. 1A). In cells expressing SST2-1 (a dominant mutant that promotes pheromone desensitization), there was a striking difference between wild type and mutant GPA1 (Fig. 1B). Cells expressing GPA1 and SST2-1 exhibited a greatly attenuated response to pheromone, resulting in a "filled in" halo. However, cells containing SST2-1 and gpa1sst responded no differently than cells containing gpa1sst alone. Clearly, the Gly-to-Ser mutation blocks the negative regulatory effect of Sst2 in vivo. Since there is no functional difference between Gpa1 and Gpa1sst in the absence of Sst2 expression, we conclude that Gpa1sst is fully competent to transmit a pheromone signal and interacts normally with Gbeta gamma and the receptor.


View larger version (82K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   Pheromone response of GPA1 and gpa1sst. A, YRGS5 (gpa1Delta , sst2Delta ) cells expressing either GPA1 or gpa1sst, and either wild type SST2 or vector alone, were plated and exposed to filter discs containing 10 µg alpha -factor. Cells were allow to grow for 48 h on selective medium before being photographed. B, YGS5 (gpa1Delta ) cells expressing either GPA1 or gpa1sst, and either the dominant gain-of-function SST2-1 mutant or vector alone was plated as described in A.

Sst2 is thought to act by binding to Gpa1 and stimulating its GTPase activity. Therefore, genetic uncoupling of SST2 and gpa1sst should accompany a physical and/or functional uncoupling of the two proteins. To test this, we purified each of the proteins and compared the ability of Gpa1 and Gpa1sst to bind and hydrolyze GTP. We first measured the rate of [35S]GTPgamma S binding and steady state [gamma -32P]GTP hydrolysis and found no difference between the wild type and mutant forms of Gpa1 (Fig. 2, A and B). We then compared the ability of each protein to catalyze the rate-limiting hydrolytic step of the reaction, using a single turnover assay in the absence or presence of a purified RGS protein (GAIP, Fig. 2C). GAIP is functionally equivalent to Sst2, but is more stabile and can be purified in much larger quantities.2 In the absence of RGS, the initial kcat of hydrolysis was ~0.006 min-1 for both wild type and mutant. With the addition of RGS, however, the rate of hydrolysis was greatly accelerated (at least 20-fold) for Gpa1 but not at all for Gpa1sst. A more accurate determination of the RGS-stimulated GTPase rate could not be made, as the reaction was essentially complete at the first time point. Thus Gpa1sst can bind and hydrolyze GTP normally, but is completely unresponsive to RGS GAP activity. These results are consistent with the in vivo experiments where, in the absence of SST2 expression, Gpa1sst can signal as well as the wild type.


View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   GTP binding and GTPase assays of wild type Gpa1 and Gpa1sst. A, purified Gpa1 or Gpa1sst was incubated with [35S]GTPgamma S (5 µM) at 30 °C, and the percent of bound nucleotide was measured at the indicated times by membrane filtration. Symbols: black-square, Gpa1; bullet , Gpa1sst. B, Gpa1, Gpa1sst, or RGS (GAIP, as a negative control) was incubated with [gamma -32P]GTP (5 µM) at 30 °C. Liberated 32Pi was measured at the indicated times by charcoal adsorption. Symbols: black-square, Gpa1; black-diamond , Gpa1sst; black-triangle, RGS. C, Gpa1 and Gpa1sst (250 nM) were incubated with [gamma -32P]GTP (1 µM) for 30 min at 30 °C. The samples were placed in ice for 5 min, and Mg+2 (an essential co-factor) was added to initiate the reaction, either in the presence or absence of RGS (GAIP, 20 µM) (t = 0). 32Pi was measured as described in B. Symbols: black-square, Gpa1; black-diamond , Gpa1 + RGS; bullet , Gpa1sst; black-triangle, Gpa1sst + RGS. Data shown are the average of duplicate measurements and are representative of at least two independent experiments.

Despite the complete loss of GAP activity in vitro, Gpa1sst does not equal the loss of SST2 in vivo. There are at least two possible explanations for this difference. First, Sst2 could regulate proteins other than Gpa1. Such interactions could involve the N-terminal 300 amino acid region of Sst2, a domain that is not found in any other RGS protein. A less likely alternative is that Gpa1sst is weakly activated by RGS in vivo but not in vitro.

The x-ray crystal structure has recently been solved for RGS4 complexed with Gi1alpha and GDP-AlF4-, a transition state mimic (37). The structure suggests a mechanism in which RGS promotes hydrolysis by stabilizing the transition state conformation of Galpha . A key prediction of this model is that loss of GAP activity should accompany a loss of RGS binding. Accordingly, we compared the ability of mutant and wild type Gpa1 to bind Sst2 in vitro. Yeast lysates containing an Sst2-GST fusion protein were adsorbed onto glutathione-Sepharose and mixed with similarly prepared lysates containing Gpa1 or Gpa1sst. The resin was washed at various NaCl concentrations, in the presence of either GDP or GDP-AlF4- (Fig. 3). At 50 mM NaCl, both the wild type and mutant were retained by Sst2-GST, but binding was not AlF4--dependent and is therefore likely to be nonspecific or nonfunctional. At higher salt concentrations (150-250 mM) Gpa1 was selectively retained when GDP-AlF4- was present, but Gpa1sst did not bind at all. At very high concentrations (350 mM), neither protein was retained. Thus the inability of the RGS protein to act as a GAP for Gpa1sst appears to be due to a weakened protein-protein interaction.


View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Sst2-GST binding to Gpa1 and Gpa1sst. Yeast-expressed Sst2-GST was immobilized on glutathione-Sepharose, incubated with Gpa1 or Gpa1sst containing lysates, and washed in NaCl (50-350 mM) buffer as indicated. The presence of AlF4- in the binding and wash solutions is indicated (+). Eluted protein was detected by immunoblotting with antibodies against Gpa1 or GST, as indicated.

Since we have shown that Gpa1sst can specifically block RGS action both in vivo and in vitro, we examined if a similar mutation in a mammalian Galpha would also block RGS action in cultured cells. We created a Gly188 right-arrow Ser mutation in Gqalpha (Gqalpha sst) and examined its sensitivity to RGS7 in cells co-transfected with the 5HT2c receptor. This particular combination of signaling proteins was chosen because they have overlapping expression patterns in the brain and are known to interact in cells (38). In cells expressing wild type Gqalpha , 5-HT stimulation resulted in a typical calcium response (using Fura-2), which was attenuated ~40% by RGS7 expression (Fig. 4A). In cells expressing Gqalpha sst, however, the response was completely refractory to RGS7 (Fig. 4B). To confirm the results obtained by calcium release, measurements of agonist-induced [3H]inositol trisphosphate (IP3) production were performed on the same cells. Co-expression of RGS7 with wild type Gqalpha reduced maximal IP3 generation by ~30%, while co-expression with Gqalpha sst had no effect (Fig. 4C). Thus, like Gpa1sst, Gqalpha sst effectively couples to receptor and Gbeta gamma , yet is resistant to the effects of RGS regulation. Since signaling in this case is mediated by Galpha , rather than Gbeta gamma (as it is in yeast), we can also conclude that effector coupling is unaltered by the Gly188 right-arrow Ser mutation.


View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Gqalpha -mediated calcium mobilization and IP3 generation in transfected CHO K1 cells. A, cells were transfected with the 5-HT2C receptor, wild-type Gqalpha , and either RGS7 or vector alone. 5-HT stimulation of calcium mobilization was monitored using Fura-2 indicator dye. The results shown are the mean of four independent experiments. Bar graphs represent maximal 5-HT-induced calcium concentrations with (+) or without (-) RGS7, after subtraction of values for mock-transfected cells. B, identical to A, except that Gqalpha sst was used in place of wild type Gqalpha . C, 5-HT-dependent increase of IP3 generation over unstimulated cells. The expression level of each protein was equivalent, as determined by immunoblotting and radioligand binding. * denotes a significant difference (p < 0.05).

To determine how the Gly to Ser substitution can disrupt Galpha -RGS interactions in such a selective manner, we employed molecular modeling using the coordinates of the RGS4-Gi1alpha crystal structure (37). The conserved Gly in Gi1alpha (Gly183) is located directly opposite Glu83 in RGS4 at the binding interface (Fig. 5). Buried surface area in this region accounts for 120 Å2, or 22%, of the Galpha binding site. Substituting Gly with Ser would introduce a hydroxyl group less than 1 Å from the backbone carbonyl of Glu83, an energetically unfavorable position both electrostatically and sterically (compare Fig. 5, B versus C). When mapped onto the crystal structure of Gi1alpha -beta gamma or Gtalpha -beta gamma , however, the same substitution shows no crowding at the beta gamma binding interface, no interference with guanine nucleotide binding, and no effect on the conformational changes that occur during GTP hydrolysis. In a direct test of this model, the corresponding mutation in Gi1alpha was shown to cause a >100-fold reduction in RGS4 binding (by flow cytometry measurements) and >1000-fold reduction in GAP activity.3


View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   Structure of Gi1alpha -RGS4 complex and modeling of the Gly-to-Ser mutation. A, ribbon structure of Gi1alpha -RGS4. Galpha is shown in green, and RGS is shown in magenta. The position of Gi1alpha Gly183 (corresponds to Gpa1Gly302; Gqalpha Gly188) is indicated by the space-filled atoms. B, connolly diagram of the switch I region of wild type Gi1alpha -RGS4 complex. Residues in Gi1alpha (a-Gly183 or a-Ser183, a-Thr182) and RGS4 (r-Glu83) are indicated. C, switch I region with Gi1alpha Gly183right-arrowSer substitution. In this area, the hydroxyl group of Ser is less than 1 Å from the backbone carbonyl of RGS4Glu83.

RGS proteins were first identified through genetic studies carried out in yeast (4, 5). G proteins were identified as potential targets of RGS regulation, through enzymological studies carried out in mammals (9, 19, 21). With this first description of a mutation that selectively blocks Galpha interaction with RGS, their cellular target and mechanism of action are now firmly established. The next major challenge will be to disrupt Galpha -RGS interactions in animals. Knockout mutations of the >20 RGS isoforms may be impractical, so Galpha sst mutants could be used instead to determine which signaling pathways are subject to RGS regulation and how desensitization of G proteins compares with desensitization of receptors. Thus we believe that Galpha sst mutants will prove useful for determining how RGS proteins regulate signaling, not just in cultured cells but also in whole animals.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Takatoshi Karasawa for plasmid construction, Deborah Nusskern for technical assistance, Charlie Boone for discussion, and Steven Sprang for RGS4-Gi1alpha coordinates.

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported in part by Grant GM 55316 from the National Institutes of Health and by a grant from the American Cyanamid Company (to H. G. D.).The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Dagger These authors contributed equally to this work.

§ Supported by Grant 95009550 from the American Heart Association.

National Institutes of Health Predoctoral Trainee T 32CA 09085.

par American Heart Association Postdoctoral Fellow CT-96-FW-32.

** National Science Foundation Predoctoral Fellow 45037.

¶¶ Established Investigator of the American Heart Association. To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Pharmacology, Boyer Center for Molecular Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 295 Congress Ave., New Haven, CT 06536-0812. Tel.: 203-737-2203; Fax: 203-737-2290; E-mail: henrik.dohlman{at}yale.edu.

1 The abbreviations used are: RGS, regulator of G protein signaling; GAP, GTPase-activating protein; GAIP, G protein alpha -interacting protein; GST, glutathione S-transferase; 5-HT, serotonin; IP3 inositol trisphosphate; GTPgamma S, guanosine 5'-3-O-(thio)triphosphate.

2 Apanovitch, D. M., Slep, K. C., Sigler, P. B., and Dohlman, H. G. (1998) Biochemistry, in press.

3 K.-L. Lan, N. A. Sarvazyan, R. Taussig, R. G. Mackenzie, P. R. DiBello, H. G. Dohlman, and R. R. Neubig, manuscript in preparation.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Procedures
Results & Discussion
References

  1. Neer, E. J. (1995) Cell 80, 249-257[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Dohlman, H. G., and Thorner, J. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 3871-3874[Free Full Text]
  3. Iyengar, R. (1997) Science 275, 42-43[Free Full Text]
  4. Chan, R. K., and Otte, C. A. (1982) Mol. Cell. Biol. 2, 11-20[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Dohlman, H. G., Apaniesk, D., Chen, Y., Song, J., and Nusskern, D. (1995) Mol. Cell. Biol. 15, 3635-3643[Abstract]
  6. Dohlman, H. G., Song, J., Ma, D., Courchesne, W. E., Thorner, J. (1996) Mol. Cell. Biol. 16, 5194-5209[Abstract]
  7. Koelle, M. R., and Horvitz, H. R. (1996) Cell 84, 115-125[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. DeVries, L., Mousli, M., Wurmser, A., and Farquhar, M. G. (1995) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 92, 11916-11920[Abstract]
  9. Hunt, T. W., Fields, T. A., Casey, P. J., Peralta, E. G. (1996) Nature 383, 175-177[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  10. Chen, C., Zheng, B., Han, J., and Lin, S. C. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 8679-8685[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Zeng, L., Fagotto, F., Zhang, T., Hsu, W., Vasicek, T. J., Perry, W. 3., Lee, J. J., Tilghman, S. M., Gumbiner, B. M., Costantini, F. (1997) Cell 90, 181-192[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Druey, K. M., Blumer, K. J., Kang, V. H., Kehrl, J. H. (1996) Nature 379, 742-746[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  13. Yan, Y., Chi, P. P., and Bourne, H. R. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 11924-11927[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Huang, C., Hepler, J. R., Gilman, A. G., Mumby, S. M. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 6159-6163[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Siderovski, D. P., Hessel, A., Chung, S., Mak, T. W., Tyers, M. (1996) Curr. Biol. 6, 211-212[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  16. Wieland, T., Chen, C. K., and Simon, M. I. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 8853-8856[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Chen, C. K., Wieland, T., and Simon, M. I. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 12885-12889[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Berman, D. M., Kozasa, T., and Gilman, A. G. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 27209-27212[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Berman, D. M., Wilkie, T. M., and Gilman, A. G. (1996) Cell 86, 445-452[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  20. Nekrasova, E. R., Berman, D. M., Rustandi, R. R., Hamm, H. E., Gilman, A. G., Arshavsky, V. Y. (1997) Biochemistry 36, 7638-7643[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  21. Watson, N., Linder, M. E., Druey, K. M., Kehrl, J. H., Blumer, K. J. (1996) Nature 383, 172-175[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Hepler, J. R., Berman, D. M., Gilman, A. G., Kozasa, T. (1997) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 94, 428-432[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Ausubel, F. M., Brent, R., Kingston, R. E., Moore, D. D., Seidman, J. G., Smith, J. A., Struhl, K. (1987) Current Protocols in Molecular Biology, Wiley-Interscience, New York
  24. Song, J., Hirschman, J., Gunn, K., and Dohlman, H. G. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 20273-20283[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Jones, E. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 194, 428-453[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Medina, R., Grishina, G., Meloni, E. G., Muth, T. R., Berlot, C. H. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 24720-24727[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Dohlman, H. G., Goldsmith, P., Spiegel, A. M., Thorner, J. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 9688-9692[Abstract]
  28. Sikorski, R. S., and Boeke, J. D. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 194, 302-318[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  29. Sprague, G. F., Jr. (1991) Methods Enzymol. 194, 21-37[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Noel, J. P., Hamm, H. E., and Sigler, P. B. (1993) Nature 366, 654-663[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  31. Lambright, D. G., Noel, J. P., Hamm, H. E., Sigler, P. B. (1994) Nature 369, 621-628[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  32. Sondek, J., Lambright, D. G., Noel, J. P., Hamm, H. E., Sigler, P. B. (1994) Nature 372, 276-279[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  33. Lambright, D. G., Sondek, J., Bohm, A., Skiba, N. P., Hamm, H. E., Sigler, P. B. (1996) Nature 379, 311-319[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Coleman, D. E., Berghuis, A. M., Lee, E., Linder, M. E., Gilman, A. G., Sprang, S. R. (1994) Science 265, 1405-1412[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  35. Wall, M. A., Coleman, D. E., Lee, E., Iniguez, L. J., Posner, B. A., Gilman, A. G., Sprang, S. R. (1995) Cell 83, 1047-1058[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  36. Mixon, M. B., Lee, E., Coleman, D. E., Berghuis, A. M., Gilman, A. G., Sprang, S. R. (1995) Science 270, 954-960[Abstract]
  37. Tesmer, J. J., Berman, D. M., Gilman, A. G., Sprang, S. R. (1997) Cell 89, 251-261[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Shuey, D. J., Betty, M., Jones, P. G., Khawaja, X. Z., and Cockett, M. I. (1998) J. Neurochem., in press


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