4.5 Article

Phosphorylation states of Cdc42 and RhoA regulate their interactions with Rho GDP dissociation inhibitor and their extraction from biological membranes

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 361, 期 -, 页码 243-254

出版社

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/0264-6021:3610243

关键词

ionic strength; rho; small GTP-binding proteins; GDI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Rho GDP dissociation inhibitor (RhoGDI) regulates the activation-inactivation cycle of Rho small GTPases, such as Cdc42 and RhoA, by extracting them from the membrane. To study the roles of Mg2+, phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2), ionic strength and phosphorylation on the interactions of RhoGDI with Cdc42 and RhoA, we developed a new, efficient and reliable method to produce prenylated Rho proteins using the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It has been previously reported that protein kinase A (PKA)-treatment of isolated membranes increased RhoA extraction from membranes by RhoGDI [Lang, Gesbert, Delespine-Carmagnat, Stancou, Pouchelet and Bertoglio (1996) EMBO J. 16, 510-519]. In the present study, we used an in vitro affinity chromatography system to show that phosphorylation of RhoA and Cdc42 significantly increased their interaction with RhoGDI under physiological conditions of ionic strength. This increase was independent of the nucleotide (GDP or guanosine 5'-[gamma-thio]triphosphate) loaded on to the Rho proteins, as well as of Mg2+ and PIP2. Moreover, dephosphorylation of rat brain membranes by alkaline phosphatase significantly decreased the extraction of RhoA and Cdc42 by RhoGDI. Subsequent re-phosphorylation by PKA restored the extraction levels, indicating the reversibility of this process. These results clearly demonstrate that the phosphorylation states of Cdc42 and RhoA regulate their interactions with RhoGDI and, consequently, their extraction from rat brain membranes. We therefore suggest that phosphorylation is a mechanism of regulation of Cdc42 and RhoA activity that is independent or GDP GTP cycling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据