Residue-level determinants of RGS R4 subfamily GAP activity and specificity towards the Gi subfamily.

The structural basis for the GTPase-accelerating activity of regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins, as well as the mechanistic basis for their specificity in interacting with the heterotrimeric (αßγ) G proteins they inactivate, is not sufficiently understood at the family level. Here, we used biochemical assays to compare RGS domains across the RGS family and map those individual residues that favorably contribute to GTPase-accelerating activity, and those residues responsible for attenuating RGS domain interactions with Gα subunits. We show that conserved interactions of RGS residues with both the Gα switch I and II regions are crucial for RGS activity, while the reciprocal effects of "modulatory" and "disruptor" residues selectively modulate RGS activity. Our results quantify how specific interactions between RGS domains and Gα subunits are set by a balance between favorable RGS residue interactions with particular Gα switch regions, and unfavorable interactions with the Gα helical domain.

RGS6 and RGS7 Discriminate between the Highly Similar Gαi and Gαo Proteins Using a Two-Tiered Specificity Strategy.

RGS6 and RGS7 are regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) proteins that inactivate heterotrimeric (αßγ) G proteins and mediate diverse biological functions, such as cardiac and neuronal signaling. Uniquely, both RGS6 and RGS7 can discriminate between Gαo and Gαi1-two similar Gα subunits that belong to the same Gi sub-family. Here, we show that the isolated RGS domains of RGS6 and RGS7 are sufficient to achieve this specificity. We identified three specific RGS6/7 "disruptor residues" that can attenuate RGS interactions toward Gα subunits and demonstrated that their insertion into a representative high-activity RGS causes a significant, yet non-specific, reduction in activity. We further identified a unique "modulatory" residue that bypasses this negative effect, specifically toward Gαo. Hence, the exquisite specificity of RGS6 and RGS7 toward closely related Gα subunits is achieved via a two-tier specificity system, whereby a Gα-specific modulatory motif overrides the inhibitory effect of non-specific disruptor residues. Our findings expand the understanding of the molecular toolkit used by the RGS family to achieve specific interactions with selected Gα subunits-emphasizing the functional importance of the RGS domain in determining the activity and selectivity of RGS R7 sub-family members toward particular Gα subunits.

Structural motifs in the RGS RZ subfamily combine to attenuate interactions with Gα subunits.

Regulators of G-protein Signaling (RGS) proteins inactivate heterotrimeric G proteins, thereby setting the duration of active signaling. In particular, the RGS RZ subfamily, which consists of RGS17, RGS19, and RGS20, mediates numerous physiological functions and human pathologies - mostly by functioning as GTPase Activating Proteins (GAPs) towards the Gαi subfamily. Yet, which RZ subfamily members mediate particular functions and how their GAP activity and specificity are governed at the amino acid level is not well understood. Here, we show that all RZ subfamily members have similar and relatively low GAP activity towards Gαo. We characterized four RZ-specific structural motifs that mediate this low activity, and suggest they perturb optimal interactions with the Gα subunit. Indeed, inserting these RZ-specific motifs into the representative high-activity RGS16 impaired GAP activity in a non-additive manner. Our results provide residue-level insights into the specificity determinants of the RZ subfamily, and enable to study their interactions in signaling cascades by using redesigned mutants such as those presented in this work.

"Disruptor" residues in the regulator of G protein signaling (RGS) R12 subfamily attenuate the inactivation of Gα subunits.

Understanding the molecular basis of interaction specificity between RGS (regulator of G protein signaling) proteins and heterotrimeric (αßγ) G proteins would enable the manipulation of RGS-G protein interactions, explore their functions, and effectively target them therapeutically. RGS proteins are classified into four subfamilies (R4, R7, RZ, and R12) and function as negative regulators of G protein signaling by inactivating Gα subunits. We found that the R12 subfamily members RGS10 and RGS14 had lower activity than most R4 subfamily members toward the Gi subfamily member Gαo Using structure-based energy calculations with multiple Gα-RGS complexes, we identified R12-specific residues in positions that are predicted to determine the divergent activity of this subfamily. This analysis predicted that these residues, which we call "disruptor residues," interact with the Gα helical domain. We engineered the R12 disruptor residues into the RGS domains of the high-activity R4 subfamily and found that these altered proteins exhibited reduced activity toward Gαo Reciprocally, replacing the putative disruptor residues in RGS18 (a member of the R4 subfamily that exhibited low activity toward Gαo) with the corresponding residues from a high-activity R4 subfamily RGS protein increased its activity toward Gαo Furthermore, the high activity of the R4 subfamily toward Gαo was independent of the residues in the homologous positions to the R12 subfamily and RGS18 disruptor residues. Thus, our results suggest that the identified RGS disruptor residues function as negative design elements that attenuate RGS activity for specific Gα proteins.

Vaccination against hepatitis B among prisoners in Iran: accelerated vs. classic vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Prisoners and injecting drug users are at constant risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and the classic 6-months HBV vaccination might not provide immunization rapidly enough. In this randomized clinical trial we investigated the efficacy of an accelerated vaccination protocol vs. classic schedule among prisoners in Iran. METHODS: 180 prisoners were randomized into 2 vaccination groups; group A underwent accelerated vaccination at 0, 1, 4 and 8 weeks and group C were vaccinated at 0, 1 and 6 months. Antibody against Hepatitis-B surface-antigen (anti-HBs) was assessed at baseline, one, two, six and eight months after the first vaccine dose using immunoenzymatic assays. Seroprotection was defined as anti-HBs titer of 10 IU/L or more. Anti-HBc and HBsAg were measured at baseline and 8th month to evaluate new HBV infection and failure of vaccination. RESULTS: Overall compliance was 100% and 90.4% in groups A and C respectively. While seroprotection rate at one month was significantly higher in group A (22.4%) compared to group C (4.7%), in the 8th month 78.8% and 93.4% seroprotection was achieved in groups A and C respectively (P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Compared to classic HBV vaccination regimen, an accelerated 0, 1, 4 and 8 weeks vaccination schedule can achieve early seroprotection more rapidly, provides clinically sufficient seroprotection with higher compliance in prisoners and can be suggested in situations that rapid immunization against HBV infection is warranted.