MCB Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quilliam, L A
Right arrow Articles by Der, C J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quilliam, L A
Right arrow Articles by Der, C J
Mol Cell Biol. 1994 February; 14(2): 1113-1121

Identification of residues critical for Ras(17N) growth-inhibitory phenotype and for Ras interaction with guanine nucleotide exchange factors.

L A Quilliam, K Kato, K M Rabun, M M Hisaka, S Y Huff, S Campbell-Burk and C J Der

Department of Pharmacology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine 27599.

ABSTRACT

The Ras(17N) dominant negative antagonizes endogenous Ras function by forming stable, inactive complexes with Ras guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs; e.g., SOS1). We have used the growth-inhibitory phenotype of Ras(17N) to characterize two aspects of Ras interaction with GEFs. First, we used a nonprenylated version of Ras(17N), designated Ras(17N/186S), which no longer associates with the plasma membrane and lacks the growth-inhibitory phenotype, to address the importance of Ras subcellular location and posttranslational modification for its interaction with GEFs. We observed that addition of an N-terminal myristylation signal to Ras(17N/186S) restored the growth-inhibitory activity of nonprenylated Ras(17N). Thus, membrane association, rather than prenylation, is critical for Ras interaction with Ras GEFs. Second, we used a biological selection approach to identify Ras residues which are critical for Ras(17N) growth inhibition and hence for interaction with Ras GEFs. We identified mutations at residues 75, 76, and 78 that abolished the growth-inhibitory activity of Ras(17N). Since GEF interaction is dispensable for oncogenic but not normal Ras function, our demonstration that single-amino-acid substitutions at these three positions impaired the transforming activity of normal but not oncogenic Ras provides further support for the role of these residues in Ras-GEF interactions. Finally, Ras(WT) proteins with mutations at these residues were no longer activated by mammalian SOS1. Altogether, these results suggest that the Ras intracellular location and Ras residues 75 to 78 are critical for Ras-GEF interaction.

Mol Cell Biol. 1994 February; 14(2): 1113-1121




This article has been cited by other articles:



Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. J. Virol. Eukaryot. Cell
Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Clin. Vaccine Immunol. All ASM Journals

Copyright © 1994 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.