Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Molecular and Cellular Biology, January 2000, p. 563-574, Vol. 20, No. 2
Department of
Pharmacology1 and Departments of Surgery
and Pharmacology,2 Wayne State University
School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan 48201
Received 20 May 1999/Returned for modification 8 July 1999/Accepted 21 October 1999
The two yeast pheromone receptors, the a and
0270-7306/0/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Feedback Phosphorylation of the Yeast a-Factor
Receptor Requires Activation of the Downstream Signaling Pathway
from G Protein through Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase
-factor receptors,
share many functional similarities: both G protein-coupled receptors
couple to the same downstream signal transduction pathway, and both
receptors undergo feedback regulation involving increased phosphorylation on their C-terminal domains in response to ligand challenge. The present work, which focuses on the signaling mechanism controlling this feedback phosphorylation, indicates one
striking difference. While the
-factor-induced phosphorylation of
the
-factor receptor does not require activation of the
downstream G protein-directed signaling pathway (B. Zanolari, S. Raths,
B. Singer-Kruger, and H. Riezman, Cell 71:755-763, 1992), the
a-factor-induced phosphorylation of the a-factor receptor (Ste3p)
clearly does. Induced Ste3p phosphorylation was blocked in cells with
disruptions of various components of the pheromone response pathway,
indicating a requirement of pathway components extending
from the G protein down through the mitogen-activated protein kinase
(MAPK). Furthermore, Ste3p phosphorylation can be induced in the
absence of the a-factor ligand when the signaling pathway is
artificially activated, indicating that the liganded receptor is not
required as a substrate for induced phosphorylation. While the
activation of signaling is critical for the feedback
phosphorylation of Ste3p, pheromone-induced gene transcription, one
of the major outcomes of pheromone signaling, appears not to be
required. This conclusion is indicated by three results. First,
ste12
cells differ from cells with disruptions of the
upstream signaling elements (e.g., ste4
,
ste20
, ste5
, ste11
,
ste7
, or fus3
kss1
cells) in that they
clearly retain some capacity for inducing Ste3p phosphorylation.
Second, while activated alleles of STE11 and
STE12 induce a strong transcriptional response, they fail
to induce a-factor receptor phosphorylation. Third, blocking of new
pheromone-induced protein synthesis with cycloheximide fails to block
phosphorylation. These findings are discussed within the context of a
recently proposed model for pheromone signaling (P. M. Pryciak and
F. A. Huntress, Genes Dev. 12:2684-2697, 1998): a key step of
this model is the activation of the MAPK Fus3p through the
G
-dependent relocalization of the Ste5p-MAPK cascade
to the plasma membrane. Ste3p phosphorylation may
involve activated MAPK Fus3p feeding back upon plasma membrane targets.
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Departments of
Surgery and Pharmacology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Elliman Building, Room 1205, 421 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201. Phone:
(313) 577-7807. Fax: (313) 577-7642. E-mail:
ndavis{at}cmb.biosci.wayne.edu.
This article has been cited by other articles:
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»