4.4 Article

Phosphorylation modulates the affinity of light-activated rhodopsin for G protein and arrestin

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 39, 期 19, 页码 5738-5749

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bi991857f

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY07035, EY01583, EY00012] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced effector activity and binding of arrestin are widely accepted consequences of GPCR phosphorylation. However, the effect of receptor multiphosphorylation on G protein activation and arrestin binding parameters has not previously been quantitatively examined. We have found receptor phosphorylation to alter both G protein and arrestin binding constants for light-activated rhodopsin in proportion to phosphorylation stoichiometry. Rod disk membranes containing different average receptor phosphorylation stoichiometries were combined with G protein or arrestin, and titrated with a series of brief light flashes. Binding of G(t) or arrestin to activated rhodopsin augmented the 390 nm MII optical absorption signal by stabilizing MII as MII.G or MII.Arr. The concentration of active arrestin or G(t) and the binding constant of each to MII were determined using a nonlinear least-squares (Simplex) reaction model analysis of the titration data. The binding affinity of phosphorylated MII for G, decreased while that for arrestin increased with each added phosphate, G(t) binds more tightly to Mn at phosphorylation levels less than or equal to two phosphates per rhodopsin; at higher phosphorylation levels, arrestin binding is favored. However, arrestin was found to bind much more slowly than G(t) at all phosphorylation levels, perhaps allowing time for phosphorylation to gradually reduce receptor-G protein interaction before arrestin capping of rhodopsin, Sensitivity of the binding constants to ionic strength suggests that a strong membrane electrostatic component is involved in both the reduction of G(t) binding and the increase of arrestin binding with increasing rhodopsin phosphorylation.

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

4.4
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