Functional Regulation of Galpha 16 by Protein Kinase C*

Anna M. AragayDagger and Michael W. Quick§

From the Dagger  Centro de Biologia Molecular, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Canto Blanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain and the § Department of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama 35294-0021

    ABSTRACT
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

Recent evidence demonstrates that the alpha  subunits of some heterotrimeric GTP-binding proteins (G proteins) are subject to modification by protein kinase C (PKC). For the family of G proteins that activate the phospholipase C/inositol trisphosphate/calcium/PKC pathway, such modification could result in G protein autoregulation. To examine the potential regulation of members of the Galpha q family by PKC phosphorylation, we expressed the thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) receptor in combination with Galpha q, Galpha 11, Galpha 14, Galpha 15, or Galpha 16 in Xenopus oocytes and examined the regulation of signaling by PKC activators and inhibitors. For Galpha 16 and Galpha 15, the two family members of hematopoietic lineage, PKC activators reduce both the magnitude and the time course of TRH-mediated responses; PKC inhibitors have the opposite effect. The PKC-mediated effects are evident in measurements of GTPase activity, suggesting that the regulation is occurring early in the signaling pathway. In vivo phosphorylation experiments demonstrate that Galpha 16 is a substrate for PKC modification. By comparison, Galpha q is not phosphorylated by PKC in vivo, and oocytes expressing Galpha q are not functionally modulated by PKC. Repeated TRH stimulation of oocytes expressing Galpha 16 mimics the effects of PKC activators, and this functional regulation is correlated with an increase in Galpha 16 phosphorylation. A mutant Galpha 16 with four consensus PKC phosphorylation sites removed is not phosphorylated in vivo, and TRH responses mediated through the mutant are not regulated by PKC. These results demonstrate that signaling involving hematopoietic G proteins is subject to PKC-mediated autoregulation, at least in part, by phosphorylation of the G protein alpha  subunit.

    INTRODUCTION
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References

Heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding proteins (G proteins)1 transduce signals from cell-surface receptors for hormones, neurotransmitters, and growth factors to intracellular second messengers and ion channels (1-5). One subset of G proteins (the Galpha q family) is responsible for coupling receptor-mediated signals to activation of PLCbeta ; in turn, PLC catalyzes the hydrolysis of phosphotidyl-4,5-bisphosphate to produce IP3 and diacylglycerol. IP3 causes the release of Ca2+ from intracellular stores, and diacylglycerol activates PKC (6-14). Five members comprise the Galpha q family: Galpha q, Galpha 11, Galpha 14, Galpha 15, and Galpha 16 (2). All members are refractory for modification by pertussis toxin, although they differ with respect to their potency for activation of PLCbeta and their tissue distribution. For example, the human clone Galpha 16 and its murine homolog Galpha 15 are specifically expressed in cells of hematopoietic lineage (15, 16).

The signals mediated through G proteins are subject to regulation by a myriad of factors that can exert their effects throughout the signaling pathway from surface seven-helix receptors (17) to intracellular IP3 receptors (18-20). Some of these factors directly modify G proteins and alter G protein function. Pertussis toxin and cholera toxin associate with certain G protein alpha  subunits to maintain them in an inactive state or render them constitutively active, respectively (21, 22). Post-translational events, such as myristoylation and palmitoylation, also influence G protein action (23). Recently, a family of proteins has been identified that act as GTPase-activating proteins of heterotrimeric G protein alpha  subunits. Isoforms of these regulators of G protein signaling (RGS proteins) show specificity toward particular G protein alpha  subunits and exert their effects by competing with downstream effectors for activated Galpha subunit binding (24, 25). Tyrosine kinases phosphorylate Galpha q and the inhibition of tyrosine phosphorylation prevents accumulation of IP3 (26). Protein kinase C directly phosphorylates members of other G protein families: Galpha i, Galpha z, and Galpha 12 (27-32). Phosphorylation by PKC has been shown to regulate signaling through Galpha z and Galpha 12 by preventing the association of the Galpha subunit with Gbeta gamma subunits (31, 32).

The evidence that signaling mediated through several different G proteins can be regulated by PKC phosphorylation of Galpha subunits is particularly intriguing for members of the Galpha q family, because such effects of PKC could represent a form of G protein autoregulation. Although Galpha q does not appear to be phosphorylated by PKC (32), the action of PKC on other members of the Galpha q family is not known. Previously, we have characterized the signaling properties of members of the Galpha q family expressed in Xenopus oocytes (20, 33), exploiting the fact that the oocyte has an endogenous Cl- channel that is normally activated by the PLC/IP3/Ca2+ pathway and that can be used as a sensitive tool for the electrophysiological characterization of G protein activity (33, 34). In the present report, we used this system to evaluate the regulation of G proteins of the Galpha q family by PKC phosphorylation. We find that signaling mediated by Galpha 15 and Galpha 16 is functionally regulated by PKC and that this change in function is correlated with the level of phosphorylation of the Galpha subunit. These results suggest an important role for PKC in the regulation of G protein signaling in hematopoietic cells.

    EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

In Vitro Synthesis of RNA-- In vitro transcription of sense RNA was performed as described previously (20). Recombinant plasmids containing Galpha cDNA inserts were linearized by digestion with appropriate restriction enzymes. The transcription of linearized templates was performed in 7.6 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.6, 6 mM MgCl2, 0.6 mM NaCl, and 10 mM dithiothreitol containing 0.5 mM each ATP, CTP and UTP, 0.1 mM GTP, 0.5 mM 5'-(7-methyl)-GTP, and 180 units of the appropriate polymerase in a total volume of 250 µl. The reaction mixture was incubated for 150 min at 37 °C. The DNA template was subsequently removed by treatment with 5 units of RNase-free DNase I for 15 min at 37 °C. Free nucleotides were removed using a Sephadex G-50 column. The mRNA was phenol/chloroform-extracted and recovered by ethanol precipitation. The RNA was dissolved in RNase-free water at the corresponding concentration (see legends), divided into aliquots, and stored at -80 °C until used. A mutant Galpha 16 was created in which four consensus phosphorylation sites (Ser4, Thr6, Ser53, and Ser336) were simultaneously mutated to Ala (pALTER 1, Promega).

Oocyte Expression and Electrophysiology-- These procedures are described in detail elsewhere (35). Briefly, oocytes were defolliculated and maintained at 18 °C in incubation medium containing ND96 (96 mM NaCl, 2 mM KCl, 1 mM MgCl2, 5 mM HEPES, pH 7.4), 1.8 mM CaCl2, 50 µg/ml gentamycin, and 5% horse serum. Whole cell currents were measured at room temperature using an Axon Instruments GeneClamp in a standard two-microelectrode voltage-clamp configuration. Current was measured on-line by chart recorder and digitized using Axoscope software. Electrodes were filled with 3 M KCl and had a resistance of 1-3 MOmega . During an experiment, the oocytes were clamped at -80 mV and superfused continuously in ND96 medium; all drugs were applied in this solution. For some drugs, Me2SO or ethanol was used as a solvent; final concentrations of these chemicals were always less than 0.1%. To minimize the contribution of the oocyte's endogenous Galpha o to the measurements (Galpha o activates the PLC pathway in oocytes; Ref. 36), all oocytes were treated for 24 h prior to recording with 5 µg/ml pertussis toxin; this inhibits Galpha o signaling but has no effect on signaling through the pertussis toxin-insensitive Galpha q family (33).

GTP Measurements-- GTPase measurements were performed on cell lysates prepared as described (37). Oocytes were homogenized in ice-cold 10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 8.0, 0.32 M sucrose, 1 mM MgSO4, and the protease inhibitors aprotinin (10 µg/ml), leupeptin (10 µg/ml), and phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (200 µM). The homogenate was pelleted twice at 1000 × g to remove cell debris, and the supernatant fraction was centrifuged at 100,000 × g for 30 min. GTPase measurements were made as described (38) and performed for 15 min at room temperature in the presence of 100 µg of membrane protein resuspended in 50 mM Tris-Cl and protease inhibitors. Protein content was determined by the method of Bradford.

In Vivo Phosphorylation and Immunodetection-- Immunodetection and phosphorylation experiments were performed using antibodies made against peptides specific to Galpha 16 (LARYLDEI) and Galpha q (LNLKEYNL). Detection of Galpha protein was by Western blot of oocyte membranes (39). Expressing oocytes were homogenized in 0.32 M sucrose in TE buffer (50 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA) with protease inhibitors. Crude membrane pellets were obtained following 100,000 × g centrifugation and resuspended in SDS sample buffer. Proteins were separated on 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis gels, transferred onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Pierce), immunoblotted with antibody (1:800 dilution of primary; 1:1000 dilution of horseradish peroxidase-conjugated secondary), and visualized using ECL reagents (Amersham Pharmacia Bioetech). In vivo phosphorylation was performed essentially as described (32). Oocytes expressing Galpha subunits were injected with 32Pi (0.5 mCi/ml) 3 h prior to antibody immunoprecipitation. For immunoprecipitation, the homogenization, centrifugation, and resuspension steps were performed in RIPA buffer (20 mM NaHEPES, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA, 150 mM NaCl, 1% sodium cholate, 1% Triton X-100, 0.5% SDS), 5 mM NaF, and 10 mM glycerophosphate. The resulting lysate was precipitated with protein G-agarose and 0.8 mg of Galpha antibody overnight at 4 °C. The precipitate was centrifuged, resuspended, run on a 6% acrylamide gel, and exposed to film. Where applicable, data were analyzed by t test or one-way analysis of variance.

    RESULTS

To examine the role of PKC in the functional regulation of signaling mediated by the Galpha q family of heterotrimeric G proteins, the TRH receptor was expressed in combination with various G protein alpha  subunits in Xenopus oocytes, and the resulting TRH-mediated signal was measured (Fig. 1). The oocyte provides an excellent system for functional analysis of signals mediated by the Galpha q family because it contains an endogenous Ca2+-activated Cl- channel that acts as a sensitive sensor for G protein/PLC/IP3/Ca2+-mediated changes that occur following receptor stimulation. We have demonstrated previously that the ligand-induced TRH receptor couples to endogenous Galpha q in oocytes (33). Furthermore, we have shown that co-expression of the TRH receptor with different members of the Galpha q family (Galpha q, Galpha 11, Galpha 14, Galpha 15, and Galpha 16) results in increases in TRH-induced Cl- currents; these results indicate functional coupling of exogenously expressed Galpha subunits to the TRH receptor in oocytes (20, 33).


View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1.   PMA-induced changes in the magnitude and kinetics of TRH-induced Cl- currents are specific to Galpha 16-injected and Galpha 15-injected oocytes. A, oocytes were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. TRH-induced Cl- currents in an individual oocyte were measured before (control) and 20 min after (PMA) injection of 1 µM (approximate final concentration) PMA. The solid bars above each trace represent the application of 100 nM TRH. B, same as in A except that oocytes were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and 0.5 ng of Galpha q cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. C, changes in the magnitude of peak Cl- currents of treated oocytes expressing TRH receptor and the G protein alpha  subunits of the Galpha q family. The amount of cRNA injected was as follows: 0.2 ng of TRH receptor; 0.005 ng of Galpha 15 and Galpha 16; 0.5 ng of Galpha q, Galpha 11, and Galpha 14. The values in parentheses above the bars denote the number of oocytes recorded first in control conditions and then 20 min after PMA injection. A value of 100% represents no change in responses between the two applications. D, changes in the time course of responses of oocytes treated as in C. Data are plotted as the time for the peak response to decay to one-half its maximal value. To control for changes in time course due to differences in peak Cl- currents, oocytes were selected post hoc such that peak Cl- currents for each group were within 10% of each other. The values in parentheses above the bars denote the number of oocytes recorded in each condition.

Fig. 1, A and B, shows results from individual oocytes recorded first during control conditions and then 20 min after injection of the PKC-activating phorbol ester PMA. Under control conditions, application of 100 nM TRH to oocytes expressing the TRH receptor and either Galpha 16 (Fig. 1A) or Galpha q (Fig. 1B) resulted in characteristic inward Cl- currents. Following PMA treatment, oocytes expressing Galpha 16 showed a reduction in both the peak amplitude and the time course of these TRH-mediated Cl- currents (Fig. 1A); oocytes expressing Galpha q were unaffected by PMA treatment (Fig. 1B).

Summary data for oocytes expressing TRH receptor and each of the PLC-activating G proteins are shown in Fig. 1, C and D. PMA significantly reduced peak TRH-mediated Cl- currents in oocytes expressing Galpha 16 (p < 0.05) and Galpha 15 (p < 0.05); PMA had no effect on oocytes expressing Galpha q, Galpha 11, and Galpha 14 (Fig. 1C). In addition to examining the effect on peak responses, we also investigated the effect of PMA on the response time course. Because the magnitude of the peak response could potentially influence the time course of the response, the post-PMA peak response data from Fig. 1C were examined; only peak Cl- currents that were of comparable size were included in the time course analyses. For oocytes showing comparable peak TRH-mediated Cl- currents following PMA treatment, only oocytes expressing Galpha 16 or Galpha 15 showed PMA-mediated decreases in response time course (Fig. 1D). These results suggest that PKC regulates the cascade induced by TRH receptor activation only in the presence of Galpha 16 or Galpha 15 subunits.

To elucidate further the PKC-dependent modulation of Galpha 16 signaling, TRH-induced currents were measured in the presence of PMA, staurosporine, or the inactive phorbol ester 4alpha PDD (Fig. 2). Fig. 2A shows data from a single oocyte recorded first during control conditions and then 20 min after injection of PMA. These results, from a separate oocyte batch, reiterate the PMA effect shown in Fig. 1; TRH-mediated Cl- currents in oocytes injected with PMA exhibit a reduction in both the peak amplitude and the time course of the response. Treatment with staurosporine, a PKC inhibitor, had the opposite effect; both the peak amplitude and the response time course of TRH-mediated currents were increased (Fig. 2B). To rule out the possibility that the reduction in Galpha 16-mediated signaling seen with PMA treatment was due to desensitization of the TRH receptor (because of repeated applications of TRH), a subset of Galpha 16-expressing oocytes was recorded first during control conditions and then 20 min following injection of water. Neither peak currents nor the time course of the response were altered in these oocytes (Fig. 2C).


View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2.   Activators and inhibitors of PKC alter the magnitude and kinetics of TRH-induced Cl- currents in oocytes expressing Galpha 16. Oocytes were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. A, TRH-induced Cl- currents in an individual oocyte measured before (control) and 20 min after (PMA) injection of 1 µM (approximate final concentration) PMA. The solid bars above each trace represent the application of 100 nM TRH. B, same as in A except currents were recorded before (control) and 20 min after (staurosporine) injection of 100 nM (approximate final concentration) staurosporine. C, same as in A except Cl- currents were measured before (control) and after (water) injection of 50 nl of water. D, changes in the magnitude of the peak response of oocytes treated with PMA, the inactive phorbol ester 4alpha -PDD, staurosporine, or vehicle (50 nl) compared with the response obtained 20 min prior to drug injection. Drug concentrations listed below the abscissa are in µM. The values in parentheses above the bars denote the number of oocytes recorded first in control conditions and then 20 min after drug injection. Data are plotted relative to control values. E, concentration-response curves for the effects of PMA (filled circles) and staurosporine (open circles) on the magnitude of peak Cl- currents. Data are plotted relative to the response elicited in untreated oocytes. Solid lines are exponential fits to the data. Each data point represents measurements from 4 to 6 oocytes. F, changes in the time course of responses of oocytes treated as in D. Data are plotted as the time for the response to decay to one-half its maximal value. To control for changes in time course due to differences in peak responses, oocytes were selected post hoc such that peak responses across all conditions were within 10% of each other. The values in parentheses above the bars denote the number of oocytes recorded in each condition.

Data summarizing the modulation of the magnitude of the peak response are shown in Fig. 2D. PMA injection caused a 56% reduction (p < 0.01) of peak Cl- currents in oocytes expressing TRH receptors and Galpha 16; staurosporine caused a 39% increase (p < 0.01). Neither injection of vehicle solution nor 4alpha PDD altered the TRH-mediated currents, which further supports the role of PKC in mediating this effect. Concentration-response data for both staurosporine and PMA are shown in Fig. 2E and demonstrate that the modulation by PKC activators and inhibitors is saturable.

Data summarizing the modulation of the response time course are shown in Fig. 2F. Only peak Cl- currents presented in Fig. 2D that were of comparable size, 490 nA ± 10% (across all conditions), were included in the time course analyses. In vehicle-injected or 4alpha PDD-injected oocytes expressing TRH receptors and Galpha 16, the length of time required for the TRH-induced response to decline to one-half its peak amplitude was approximately 13 s. In PMA-injected oocytes, this decline was significantly faster (4.5 s, p < 0.01). In staurosporine-injected oocytes, the decline was slowed to 24 s (p < 0.01). These results demonstrate that agents which either activate or inhibit PKC regulate ligand-induced receptor-mediated Galpha 16 signaling by altering both the amplitude and the time course of the receptor response.

The evidence that a PKC activator could inhibit signaling through Galpha 16, coupled with the fact that Galpha 16 stimulation results in activation of PKC, suggested the hypothesis that Galpha 16 activation could autoregulate further Galpha 16 signaling via PKC activation. To test this possibility, we designed experiments in which Cl- currents were measured during repeated TRH stimulation in oocytes expressing TRH receptor and Galpha 16. Conditions were chosen to minimize homologous desensitization of the receptor upon repeated TRH applications. The results of one such experiment are shown in Fig. 3A. First, base-line TRH-mediated peak responses were obtained for oocytes in all conditions. Next, oocytes were injected with PMA, staurosporine, or vehicle. Twenty minutes later, oocytes were repeatedly challenged with 30-s applications of TRH at 4-min intervals. Repeated TRH stimulation of oocytes expressing Galpha 16 resulted in a time-dependent decrease in the peak response that approached the levels obtained in oocytes treated with PMA. Oocytes treated with PMA showed the characteristic reduction in peak currents that were insensitive to further reduction following repeated TRH stimulation. Oocytes treated with staurosporine showed the characteristic increase in peak currents but failed to show a decrease in peak response following repeated TRH application. Oocytes injected with Galpha q, which is insensitive to PKC regulation, did not show a decrease in peak Cl- currents during repeated TRH stimulation. The evidence that repetitive stimulation caused a reduction in the TRH-induced response (i) only in the presence of Galpha 16, (ii) similar to that seen with PMA treatment, and (iii) under conditions in which receptor homologous desensitization was negligible suggests the possibility that the Galpha 16 cascade can be feedback-regulated.


View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3.   Repeated TRH-induced stimulation of Galpha 16-mediated Cl- currents mimics the effects of PMA. A, oocytes (five per condition) were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and either 0.5 ng of Galpha q or 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. Control peak Cl- currents were recorded at time 0 following application of 100 nM TRH. The measured oocyte was then water-injected or injected with 1 µM PMA or 100 nM staurosporine. Twenty minutes after the first measurement, the oocyte was then stimulated with a 30-s application of 100 nM TRH in 4-min intervals. Peak Cl- currents were recorded and plotted as a percentage of the initial response. B, oocytes (six per condition) were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA, 1 ng of 5HT2c cRNA, and either 0.5 ng of Galpha q or 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. TRH-induced currents were measured as in A except that 30-s applications of 10 nM 5HT were substituted at the 24-, 28-, and 32-min time points.

To rule out further that desensitization of the receptor was contributing to the reduction in Galpha 16-mediated signaling during repetitive stimulation, we performed heterologous desensitization experiments using repetitive stimulation of multiple receptors that couple to Galpha 16 in oocytes (20). Experiments were performed similar to those discussed in Fig. 3A using oocytes expressing Galpha 16 and both TRH and 5HT2c receptors. These data are shown in Fig. 3B. Once again, base-line TRH-mediated peak responses were obtained for oocytes in all conditions. Next, oocytes were injected with PMA or vehicle. Twenty minutes later, oocytes were re-tested with TRH and then repeatedly stimulated with 30-s applications of 5HT at 4-min intervals. After three applications of 5HT, the oocytes were re-tested with TRH. Oocytes expressing Galpha 16 showed decreases in TRH-mediated Cl- currents following repeated 5HT stimulation that were comparable to the decreases obtained in PMA-treated oocytes. Oocytes expressing Galpha q did not show stimulation-mediated decreases in Cl- currents. Thus, repeated Galpha 16 stimulation, even through different receptors, is capable of down-regulating the Galpha 16-mediated signal. These data not only reinforce the possibility of Galpha 16-mediated autoregulation but suggest that this signaling cascade can be regulated by any pathway that activates PKC.

Assuming that all of the components of the PLC/IP3/Ca2+ pathway are the same following activation by different members of the Galpha q family, the data showing that only some members are modulated by PKC suggest that the action of PKC occurs at the level of G protein activation. To support this hypothesis further, two additional experiments were performed. First, to confirm that the regulation by PKC was not occurring at the level of the IP3 receptor or at the level of the Ca2+-activated Cl- channel, TRH-mediated G protein activation was bypassed by direct injection of IP3 into the oocyte. The results of this experiment are shown in Fig. 4. Fig. 4A shows the responses of an oocyte-expressing TRH receptor and Galpha 16 before and after treatment with PMA. One minute after the PMA measurement, the oocyte was injected with IP3. The PMA-induced decrease in peak response following TRH stimulation was reversed by IP3 (Fig. 4B, p < 0.05), suggesting that components of the signaling cascade downstream of IP3 are not the site of the regulation.


View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4.   Injection of IP3 rescues the PMA-induced changes to the magnitude and kinetics of TRH-induced Cl- currents in oocytes expressing Galpha 16. Oocytes were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to measurement. A, TRH-induced Cl- currents in an individual oocyte measured before (control) and 20 min after (PMA) injection of 1 µM (approximate final concentration) PMA, followed 1 min later by injection of IP3. The solid bars above the left and middle trace represent the application of 100 nM TRH. The arrow above the right trace represents the pressure injection of 10 nl of 75 pmol of IP3. B, changes in the magnitude of TRH-induced or IP3-induced peak Cl- currents in oocytes (n = 7) treated with PMA. Oocytes were measured first in control conditions following TRH stimulation (open bars); 20 min after PMA injection (filled bars) the oocyte was then stimulated with TRH and 1 min later with IP3, as described in A.

To confirm that the modulation of function by PKC was occurring at the level of the G protein, GTPase measurements were performed on oocytes expressing TRH receptors and either Galpha 16 or Galpha q. These results are shown in Fig. 5A. Activation with TRH resulted in a greater than 20-fold increase in GTPase activity in oocytes expressing either Galpha 16 or Galpha q over no-agonist control conditions. There was an approximately 4-fold increase in TRH-mediated GTPase activity in oocytes expressing the TRH receptor alone (data not shown), suggesting that the majority of the GTPase activity in the oocytes expressing either Galpha 16 or Galpha q was due to overexpression of these G proteins. Pretreatment with PMA caused a reduction in GTPase activity in Galpha 16-expressing oocytes (p < 0.05) but not in Galpha q-expressing oocytes. These results suggest that the action of PMA occurs at a step in the cascade that can affect GTP hydrolysis, either at the level of the G protein or at the level of G protein/receptor coupling.


View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5.   PMA reduces TRH-induced GTPase activity in oocytes expressing Galpha 16. A, oocytes (five per condition) were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and either 0.005 ng of Galpha 16 cRNA or 0.5 ng of Galpha q cRNA 48 h prior to assay of GTPase activity. Agonist-induced GTPase activity was determined by incubating cell lysates with 100 nM TRH with (filled bars) or without (open bars) a 10-min pretreatment with 1 µM PMA. No agonist control conditions (hatched bars) are shown for comparison. Low Km GTPase activities in each condition were determined by subtracting high Km activity (in the presence of 50 mM unlabeled GTP) from the total GTPase activity. The data shown are from one batch of oocytes and are representative of three experiments. B, estimates of GTPase activity in the presence of increasing concentrations of TRH. Experiments were performed as described in A. GTPase activity in the presence of 1 µM PMA (filled circles) and 100 nM staurosporine (open circles) was compared with untreated oocytes (open squares). GTPase values obtained in untreated lysates using 1000 nM TRH was arbitrarily set to 100%. Solid lines are exponential fits to the data. The data shown are from one batch of oocytes and representative of two experiments. C, peak TRH-induced Cl- currents measured in the presence of increasing concentrations of TRH. Peak currents in the presence of 1 µM PMA (filled circles) and 100 nM staurosporine (open circles) were compared with untreated oocytes (open squares). Values obtained in untreated oocytes using 1000 nM TRH were arbitrarily set to 100%. Solid lines are exponential fits to the data. Data (four oocytes/data point) are from the same batch of oocytes assayed for GTPase activity (B). D, latency to peak response in oocytes expressing TRH receptor and Galpha 16 and treated with 1 µM PMA or 100 nM staurosporine. Peak TRH-mediated currents were determined using 100 nM TRH. Solution exchange considerations and calibration of solution exchange time course have been previously discussed (51). Data are from six oocytes/condition.

In theory, a reduction in GTPase activity due to PMA treatment could result either from a decrease in intrinsic GTPase activity (either directly or through a change in GTPase-activating protein function) or from a decrease in the number of activated G protein molecules (e.g. through an inhibition of G protein/receptor coupling). In the former case, a decrease in GTPase activity would be correlated with an increase in Cl- channel activation; in the latter case, TRH-mediated Cl- channel activation would be decreased. Since oocytes expressing Galpha 16 show a decrease in both GTPase activity and Cl- currents, the data are consistent with a model in which PMA interferes with receptor-mediated activation of the G protein. To address this hypothesis further, we repeated the GTPase measurements in the presence of increasing TRH concentrations (Fig. 5B), and we compared these results to peak TRH-mediated Cl- currents (Fig. 5C). Treatment of oocytes with both PMA and staurosporine resulted in a change in the maximal amount of GTPase activity that could be elicited; this effect was mirrored by functional changes as assessed by Cl- current activation. These data suggest that PKC activators and inhibitors act to alter the fraction of activable Galpha 16 molecules.

If the fraction of activable Galpha 16 molecules is reduced, perhaps by interfering with the coupling of the TRH receptor to Galpha 16, then the time course to peak Cl- channel activation should be altered. Changes in the latency to peak activation following TRH application in oocytes treated with either PMA or staurosporine are shown in Fig. 5D. PMA treatment resulted in a 3-fold slowing in response latency; staurosporine treatment produced a small decrease in the latency. The much smaller change in latency in the presence of staurosporine may reflect a smaller amount of endogenous PKC phosphorylation in control oocytes in that oocyte batch.

Since the above data were consistent with the hypothesis that PKC is acting on the G protein, experiments were performed to determine if Galpha 16 is phosphorylated by PKC and if the level of phosphorylation correlated with the functional effects of PKC activation. These results are shown in Fig. 6. We first examined the effect of PMA treatment on oocytes expressing either Galpha 16 or Galpha q. For this experiment, oocytes were preincubated with labeled phosphate in the absence or presence of PMA, homogenized, and immunoprecipitated using subtype-specific antibodies. The specificity of the antibodies was confirmed in a Western blot analysis of oocyte membranes expressing either Galpha 16 or Galpha q (Fig. 6A). Autoradiographs of extracts immunoprecipitated with the Galpha 16 antibody revealed a band only in oocytes expressing Galpha 16 and treated with PMA (Fig. 6B). This band was absent or near absent in oocytes not treated with PMA or in oocytes expressing Galpha q and treated with PMA. These results indicate that phosphorylation of Galpha 16 is specific and observed upon activation of PKC.


View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6.   Galpha 16 is phosphorylated in vivo by PMA and by TRH receptor stimulation. Oocytes (20 per condition) were injected with TRH receptor and various G protein alpha  subunits and assayed 48 h post-injection. The amount of cRNA injected was as follows: 0.2 ng of TRH receptor; 0.005 ng of Galpha 16; 0.5 ng of Galpha q, Galpha 11, and Galpha 14. A, specific immunoreactivity of anti-Galpha 16 and anti-Galpha q antibodies. Oocyte membranes were prepared and subjected to protein gel electrophoresis and immunodetection as described under "Experimental Procedures." B, Galpha 16, but not Galpha q, is phosphorylated in vivo by PMA. Oocytes were injected with 32Pi as described. Twenty min prior to homogenization, some oocytes were treated with PMA. The homogenates were immunoprecipitated with either anti-Galpha 16 or anti-Galpha q antibodies, subjected to protein gel electrophoresis, and exposed to film. C, repeated TRH stimulation results in increased Galpha 16 phosphorylation. Oocytes were injected with 32Pi as described. Prior to homogenization, oocytes were left unstimulated, or stimulated with various 30-s applications of 100 nM TRH. The stimulation interval was 2 min. The homogenates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Galpha 16 antibody, subjected to protein gel electrophoresis, and exposed to film. D, decrease in peak TRH-mediated Cl- currents following repeated 30-s applications of 100 nM TRH. The stimulation interval was 2 min. Data are from six oocytes and are plotted as a percentage of the results obtained with the first TRH application.

To determine if phosphorylation of Galpha 16 is correlated with receptor activation, oocytes expressing TRH receptor and Galpha 16 were preincubated with labeled phosphate, unstimulated or repetitively stimulated with various applications of TRH, homogenized, and immunoprecipitated. Repetitive TRH stimulation resulted in an increase in the state of Galpha 16 phosphorylation (Fig. 6C). The amount of Galpha 16 phosphorylation following repetitive TRH application was correlated with the reduction in peak TRH-mediated Cl- currents as assessed by voltage clamp (Fig. 6D). These results demonstrate that the phosphorylation of Galpha 16 is influenced by receptor stimulation and that the degree of Galpha 16 phosphorylation correlates with the amount of receptor-mediated activation. The evidence that both repetitive stimulation of the receptor and PMA treatment induce Galpha 16 phosphorylation supports the hypothesis that Galpha 16 can be regulated by feedback phosphorylation.

If phosphorylation of Galpha 16 by PKC is responsible for the functional regulation of TRH-mediated responses, then oocytes expressing a mutant Galpha 16 protein that is not phosphorylated by PKC should not mediate modulation of TRH-induced responses. To test this hypothesis, we simultaneously mutated four sites on Galpha 16 (Ser4, Thr6, Ser53, and Ser336) that are consensus sequences for PKC phosphorylation which are not present in Galpha q. We expressed this mutant along with TRH receptors in oocytes. The results of this experiment are shown in Fig. 7. Unlike wild-type Galpha 16, the mutant Galpha 16 protein was not phosphorylated in vivo by PMA (Fig. 7A). In addition, TRH stimulation of oocytes expressing the mutant Galpha 16 resulted in inward Cl- currents that appeared comparable to wild-type Galpha 16; however, these currents could not be regulated by PMA (Fig. 7B). In the same batch of oocytes, whereas oocytes expressing wild-type Galpha 16 showed the characteristic regulation of peak Cl- currents in the presence of PMA and staurosporine, oocytes expressing the mutant Galpha 16 were not regulated (Fig. 7C). The response time course in the mutant-expressing oocytes was also not regulated (Fig. 7D). These data strongly support the hypothesis that PKC phosphorylation of Galpha 16 is responsible for the functional regulation of TRH-mediated signaling.


View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7.   TRH responses are not regulated when mediated through a mutant Galpha 16 that is not phosphorylated by PKC. Oocytes were injected with 0.2 ng of TRH receptor cRNA and either 0.005 ng of wild-type Galpha 16 cRNA or 0.05 ng of mutant Galpha 16 cRNA 48 h prior to assay. A, wild-type Galpha 16, but not mutant Galpha 16, is phosphorylated in vivo by PMA. Oocytes were injected with 32Pi as described. Twenty min prior to homogenization, oocytes were treated with PMA. The homogenates were immunoprecipitated with anti-Galpha 16 antibodies, subjected to protein gel electrophoresis, and exposed to film. B, TRH-induced Cl- currents in an oocyte expressing mutant Galpha 16 measured before (control) and 20 min after (PMA) injection of 1 µM (approximate final concentration) PMA. The solid bars above each trace represent the application of 100 nM TRH. C, changes in the magnitude of the peak response of oocytes expressing wild-type (filled bars) or mutant (open bars) Galpha 16. Oocytes were left untreated or injected with PMA or staurosporine. Drug concentrations listed below the abscissa are in µM. Eight oocytes/condition (from the same oocyte batch) were recorded first in control conditions and then 20 min after drug injection. D, changes in the time course of responses of oocytes treated as in C. Data are plotted as the time for the response to decay to one-half its maximal value.


    DISCUSSION

G proteins serve as both the upstream initiators and the downstream targets of a variety of intracellular second messengers. An important aspect of these cascades must be their ability to prevent uncontrolled cell stimulation. Such regulation of G protein signaling could occur through second messenger pathways that are part of an autoregulatory feedback loop or that are initiated by cross-talk between second messenger systems. Several types of kinases are known to modify different proteins of the G protein cascade. These include G protein-coupled receptor kinases (40, 41), tyrosine kinases (26), and second messenger kinases (42). In the present report, we show that signaling mediated by two members of the Galpha q family that are endogenously expressed in hematopoietic cells (Galpha 16 and Galpha 15) is regulated by activators and inhibitors of PKC. A decrease in Galpha 16 signaling is concomitant with in vivo Galpha subunit phosphorylation by PKC. We show that repeated receptor/Galpha 16-coupled activation of the PLC pathway is sufficient to inhibit downstream signaling and to induce Galpha subunit phosphorylation; this result associates PKC phosphorylation with regulation of the receptor-mediated response. Additionally, these results demonstrate that stimulation of one receptor results in desensitization of a second receptor signal when both receptors are coupled to Galpha 16. These data suggest (i) a mechanism for autoregulation of the receptor-activated Galpha 16/Galpha 15 transduction pathway and (ii) a mechanism for regulatory cross-talk by any transduction pathway that activates PKC.

We believe that the phosphorylation of Galpha 16 by PKC is responsible for the functional regulation of TRH-mediated signaling. In fact, we show that a mutant Galpha 16 protein that is not phosphorylated by PKC does not mediate modulation of TRH-induced responses, suggesting that PKC phosphorylation of Galpha 16 is responsible for the functional regulation of TRH-mediated signaling. Furthermore, the evidence that signaling mediated by Galpha q, a protein that is highly related to Galpha 16 and which activates a comparable signaling pathway in oocytes, is not affected by PKC supports the conclusion that the PKC effect on Galpha 16 is direct. We cannot rule out that some other protein in the oocyte may be responsible for some of the PKC-mediated effects in the Galpha 16 pathway, and the likelihood that the functional effects of PKC are solely due to its action on Galpha 16 is remote given the multiple mechanisms through which G protein-mediated signals have been shown to be modified. For instance, PKC can have functional effects by acting on various seven-helix receptors and on downstream signaling components. Furthermore, PKC may not be the only mechanism acting to control Galpha 16 activity. We and others (19, 20) have demonstrated that chronic activation of the PLC pathway by high expression of wild-type or GTPase-deficient Galpha 16 induces signal adaptation through down-regulation of IP3 receptors. Thus, Galpha 16-mediated signaling cascades initiated by different receptors in hematopoietic cell types is subject to regulatory control involving multiple mechanisms, including PKC autoregulation and chronic desensitization of IP3 receptors.

We are presently determining the site(s) necessary for this effect and the mechanism(s) by which such biochemical modification causes functional inhibition of Galpha 16 signaling. For Galpha z and Galpha 12, PKC phosphorylation occurs in the amino-terminal beta gamma binding region of the Galpha subunit and inhibits signaling by preventing trimer association (31, 32). Two serine residues and one threonine residue are present in this region of Galpha 16 and Galpha 15 that could serve as the sites of PKC phosphorylation. The Galpha z and Galpha 12 studies also suggest that the active phosphorylation sites are surrounded by arginine residues (31, 32). One arginine-rich serine site is present in Galpha 16 and Galpha 15; it is found near the carboxyl terminus in a putative receptor-binding region. Our GTPase data suggest that PKC phosphorylation of Galpha 16 reduces the number of activable G protein molecules; a mechanism in which phosphorylation of a site interferes with receptor/G protein coupling is consistent with these data.

Our data reveal that the only members of the Galpha q family that are functionally regulated by PKC phosphorylation are the Galpha 15 and Galpha 16 subunits. These two G proteins have a number of interesting features. They can be activated by a wide variety of functionally different receptors (43); the potential for these G proteins to couple to a broad spectrum of receptors makes them a good target for feedback regulation in order to prevent aberrant signaling. Regulation of the expression and activity of Galpha 16 may be critical for controlling cellular proliferation rates. For instance, GTPase-deficient Galpha 16 signaling inhibits growth rates of small cell lung carcinoma (44). Also, these G protein subunits can be distinguished from other G proteins by their specific and tightly regulated expression; they are restricted to hematopoietic cell types (15, 16), and the expression pattern is subject to change during cellular differentiation (45-49). In this regard it is intriguing to note that disruption of Galpha 16 expression in Jurkat T-cells inhibits activation of T-cell responses and that Galpha 16 proteins may be involved in the negative regulation of TCR signaling (50).

    FOOTNOTES

* This work was supported in part by W. M. Keck Foundation Grant 931360 and National Institutes of Health Grant CA13148 (to M. W. Q.).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.

To whom correspondence should be addressed: Dept. of Neurobiology, CIRC 446, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1719 Sixth Ave. South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0021. Tel.: 205-975-5098; Fax: 205-975-5097; E-mail: quick{at}nrc.uab.edu.

    ABBREVIATIONS

The abbreviations used are: G proteins, heterotrimeric guanine nucleotide-binding proteins; IP3, inositol trisphosphate; PKC, protein kinase C; PLC, phospholipase C; PMA, phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate; TRH, thyrotropin-releasing hormone; 4-alpha PDD, 4-alpha -phorbol 12,13-didecanoate; 5HT, serotonin.

    REFERENCES
Top
Abstract
Introduction
References
  1. Kaziro, Y., Itoh, H., Kozasa, T., Nakafuku, M., and Satoh, T. (1991) Annu. Rev. Biochem. 60, 349-400[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  2. Simon, M. I., Strathmann, M. P., and Gautam, N. (1991) Science 252, 802-808[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  3. Hepler, J. R., and Gilman, A. G. (1992) Trends Biochem. Sci. 17, 383-387[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Conklin, B. R., and Bourne, H. R. (1993) Cell 73, 631-641[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Neer, E. J. (1995) Cell 80, 249-257[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  6. Taylor, S. J., Chae, H. Z., Rhee, S. G., and Exton, J. H. (1991) Nature 350, 516-518[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  7. Camps, M., Carozzi, A., Schnabel, P., Scheer, A., Parker, P. J., and Gierschik, P (1992) Nature 360, 684-686[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  8. Katz, A., Wu, D. Q., and Simon, M. I. (1992) Nature 360, 686-689[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  9. Lee, C. H., Park, D., Wu, D., Rhee, S. G., and Simon, M. I. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 16044-16047[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Berridge, M. J. (1993) Nature 361, 315-325[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  11. Park, D., Jhon, D. Y., Lee, C. W., Lee, K. H., and Rhee, S. G. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 4573-4576[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Smrcka, A. V., and Sternweis, P. C. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 9667-9674[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Wu, D. Q., Katz, A., and Simon, M. I. (1993) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 5297-5301[Abstract]
  14. Kuang, Y., Wu, Y., Smrcka, A., Jiang, H., and Wu, D. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 93, 2964-2968[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Amatruda, T. T., III, Steele, D. A., Slepak, V. Z., and Simon, M. I. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 5587-5591[Abstract]
  16. Wilkie, T., Scherle, P. A., Strathmann, M. P., Slepak, V. Z., and Simon, M. I. (1991) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88, 10049-10053[Free Full Text]
  17. Caron, M. G., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (1993) Recent Prog. Horm. Res. 48, 277-290[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. Honda, Z., Takano, T., Hirose, N., Suzuki, T., Muto, A., Kume, S., Mikoshiba, K., Itoh, K., and Shimizu, T. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 4840-4844[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Lobaugh, L. A., Eisfelder, B., Gibson, K., and Johnson, G. L. (1996) Mol. Pharmacol. 50, 493-500[Abstract]
  20. Quick, M. W., Lester, H. A., Davidson, N., Simon, M. I., and Aragay, A. M. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 32021-32027[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Ui, M. (1990) in ADP-ribosylating Toxins and G Proteins (Moss, J., and Vaughn, M., eds), pp. 45-77, American Society of Microbiology, Washington, D. C.
  22. Gierschik, P., and Jacobs, K. H. (1992) in Selective Neurotoxicity, Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology (Herken, H., and Hucho, F., eds), Vol. 102, pp. 807-840, Springer-Verlag Inc., New York
  23. Neer, E. J. (1994) Protein Sci. 3, 3-14[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Koelle, M. R., and Horvitz, H. R. (1996) Cell 84, 115-125[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  25. Koelle, M. R. (1997) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 9, 143-147[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Umemori, H., Inoue, T., Kume, S., Sekiyama, N., Nagao, M., Itoh, H., Nakanishi, S., Mikoshiba, K., and Yamamoto, T. (1997) Science 276, 1878-1881[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Katada, T., Gilman, A. G., Watanabe, Y., Bauer, S., and Jakobs, K. H. (1985) Eur. J. Biochem. 151, 431-437[Abstract]
  28. Daniel-Issakani, S., Spiegel, A. M., and Strulovici, B. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 20240-20247[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Bushfield, M., Murphy, G. J., Lavan, B. E., Parker, P. J., Hruby, V. J., Milligan, G., and Housley, M. D. (1990) Biochem. J. 268, 449-457[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  30. Lounsbury, K. M., Schlegel, B., Poncz, M., Brass, L. F., and Manning, D. R. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 3494-3498[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Fields, T. A., and Casey, P. J. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 23119-23125[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Kosaza, T., and Gilman, A. G. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 12562-12567[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Quick, M. W., Simon, M. I., Davidson, N., Lester, H. A., and Aragay, A. M. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 30164-30172[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Miledi, R., and Parker, I. (1984) Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 215, 491-497
  35. Quick, M. W., and Lester, H. A. (1994) in Methods in Neuroscience: Ion Channels of Excitable Cells (Conn, P. M., ed), pp. 261-279, Academic Press, San Diego
  36. Moriarty, T. M., Sealfon, S. C., Carty, D. J., Roberts, J. L., Iyengar, R., and Landau, E. M. (1989) J. Biol. Chem. 264, 13524-13530[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Ho, B., Karschin, A., Raymond, J. R., Branchek, T., Lester, H. A., and Davidson, N. (1992) FEBS Lett. 301, 303-306[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  38. Cassel, D., and Selinger, Z. (1976) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 452, 538-551[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  39. Corey, J. L., Davidson, N., Lester, H. A., Brecha, N., and Quick, M. W. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 14759-14767[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Lefkowitz, R. J. (1993) Cell 74, 409-412[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  41. Premont, R. T., Koch, W. J., Inglese, J., and Lefkowitz, R. J. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 6832-6841[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Bohm, S. K., Grady, E. F., and Bunnett, N. W. (1997) Biochem. J. 322, 1-18[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  43. Offermanns, S., and Simon, M. I. (1995) J. Biol. Chem. 270, 15175-15180[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Heasley, L. E., Zamarripa, J., Storey, B., Helfrich, B., Mitchell, F. M., Bunn, P. A., Jr., and Johnson, G. L. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 349-354[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Watkins, D. C., Northup, J. K., and Malbon, C. C. (1987) J. Biol. Chem. 262, 10651-10657[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Watkins, D. C., Rapiejko, P. R., Ros, M., Wang, H. J., and Malvon, C. C. (1989) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 165, 929-934[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  47. Kesselring, F., Spicher, K., and Porzig, H. (1994) Blood 84, 4088-4098[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Mapara, M. Y., Bommert, K., Bargou, R. C., Leng, C., Beck, C., Ludwig, W. D., Gierschik, P., and Dorken, B. (1995) Blood 85, 1836-1842[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Denis-Henriot, D., Lacasa, D., Goldsmith, P. K., De Mazancourt, P., and Giudicelli, Y. (1996) Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 220, 443-448[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  50. Lipper, E., Baltewnsperger, K., Jacques, Y., and Hermouet, S. (1997) FEBS Lett. 417, 292-296[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  51. Fenster, C. P., Rains, M. F., Noerager, B., Quick, M. W., and Lester, R. A. J. (1997) J. Neurosci. 17, 5747-5759[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Copyright © 1999 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.