GAF and PAS: an extended superfamily of phototransducing and signaling domains
PAS domains, named for Per, ARNT and Sim, are a ubiquitous class of sensory transduction domains (
Ponting and Aravind, 1997;
Pellequer et al., 1998;
Reppert, 1998;
Sassone‐Corsi, 1998). The striking similarity in the structures of the GAF and PAS domains reveals a clear evolutionary relationship between the two. These two domain families taken separately each represent an exceptionally large number of proteins implicated in sensory and signaling pathways. A total of 877 PAS domains are found in 574 different proteins in the non‐redundant sequence database, whereas 497 GAF domains are found in 446 different proteins (
Schultz et al., 1998). Both domain families include members that have direct roles as photon receptors. The photoactive yellow protein is an archetypal PAS domain photoreceptor (
Pellequer et al., 1998). It is intriguing that the Cys/His/Asp/Glu pocket of the YKG9 protein corresponds in three dimensions to the
p‐hydroxycinnamoyl binding site of photoactive yellow protein (
Figure 4;
Borgstahl et al., 1995;
Genick et al., 1998) and the heme binding pocket of FixL (
Gong et al., 1998). The observation of a close similarity in both topology and binding site location between the GAF and PAS domains provides for the first time a direct link between two of the largest structural classes of soluble sensory transducers.
The phytochromes are a major class of signal transducing photoreceptors in plants (
Quail et al., 1995), and one of the largest groups of GAF domain proteins (
Figure 1). Photons are absorbed by a tetrapyrrole chromo phore that is covalently attached to a Cys residue in the GAF domain of the phytochrome. This Cys residue is found in an ∼25 amino acid segment inserted between β4 and β5, placing it over the irregular layer of the GAF domain. This region is absent from YKG9 and most other GAF domains. Model building positions the inserted region directly above the unusual Cys/His/Asp/Glu pocket of YKG9. A homology model (not shown) of phytochrome E of
Arabidopsis thaliana reveals that this predominantly hydrophobic pocket is maintained in this protein. It therefore appears that the tetrapyrrole binding pocket of the phytochromes is formed at essentially the same site as the Cys/His/Asp/Glu pocket of YKG9 and the heme and chromophore binding sites of the FixL and photoactive yellow protein PAS domains, respectively. The new relationship between PAS domain‐containing photoreceptors and phytochromes extends to other soluble GAF domain‐containing photoreceptors as well, as exemplified by the cyanobacterial chromatic adaptation sensor (
Kehoe and Grossman, 1996). Circadian regulation in cyanobacteria depends on a GAF domain‐containing protein, the circadian input kinase (CikA;
Schmitz et al., 2000), in contrast to the PAS domain‐containing circadian regulatory proteins of eukaryotes. The similarity established between GAF and PAS domains is consistent with an evolutionary connection between circadian regulation in eukaryotes and cyanobacteria.
The connection between PAS and GAF domains sheds new light on the domain structure of PDEs. Of the 11 PDE families, PDEs 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 contain GAF domains in their N‐terminal regulatory regions, and one, PDE8, contains a PAS domain. The function of the single N‐terminal PAS domain of PDE8 is not known and the presence of a PAS domain in a PDE was unexpected at the time of its discovery (
Soderling et al., 1998). The similarity between the GAF and PAS domains makes the occurrence of a PAS domain in a PDE seem much less surprising and suggests that PDE8 should be grouped, at least in a structural sense, along with PDEs 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11.
cGMP recognition by GAF domains
To date, just one structural class of cyclic nucleotide receptors has been characterized, that comprises the bacterial CAP (
McKay and Steitz, 1981), the cyclic nucleotide‐regulated protein kinases PKG and PKA (
Weber et al., 1989;
Su et al., 1995) and the cyclic nucleotide‐gated ion channels (
Altenhofen et al., 1991;
Kumar and Weber, 1992). This class has been referred to as the ‘cNMP’ domain family (
Schultz et al., 1998). The GAF domains of the cGMP‐regulated PDEs represented a potentially different class of cyclic nucleotide receptors, since they lacked any sequence homology to the cNMP motif. The structure of the YKG9 protein shows no similarity to the cNMP domain and thus establishes beyond any doubt that there are at least two entirely different structural classes of cyclic nucleotide receptors.
The YKG9 structure provides a three‐dimensional template for modeling other GAF domains, including those of the PDEs. The use of multiple threading alignment based on the solved structure makes it possible to generate reasonably reliable homology models of GAF domains from PDEs and other proteins based on the YKG9 crystal structure. The accumulated data on residues involved in cGMP binding (
McAllister‐Lucas et al., 1995;
Turko et al., 1996) made it possible to identify the cGMP binding site unambiguously. The cGMP binding site is formed by parts of α3, α5, β1 and β6. This is on the opposite side of the central β‐sheet from the Cys/His/Asp/Glu cavity formed between the irregular layer and the β‐sheet, and the site has no counterpart in the PAS domain. The cGMP site is as near the general region of the fold as the poly‐
l‐proline‐ and actin‐binding sites of profilin (
Schutt et al., 1993;
Thorn et al., 1997), but no precise alignment of the sites can be derived.
The model of the binding site strongly suggested Arg174 as a key ligand for the cyclic phosphate moiety. The correct prediction of a role for Arg174 in cGMP binding lends considerable confidence to the identification of the cGMP binding site. In PDE5‐GAFb, which binds cGMP with much lower affinity than PDE5‐GAFa, the position corresponding to Arg174 is a Lys. The mutational analysis shows that while the R174K mutation reduces binding measurably, this change alone cannot account for all of the difference in affinity between PDE5‐GAFa and PDE5‐GAFb. Indeed, the reverse mutation, K356R in PDE5‐GAFb does not restore binding. This is not necessarily surprising, since there are several other sequence differences between PDE5‐GAFa and PDE‐GAFb in the α3–β1 junction and the β6–α5 loop, both in the vicinity of the binding site. Aside from the absolute conservation of the Asn, Lys and Asp surrounding the guanine base, and the usually conserved presence of either an Arg or Lys near the phosphate, no other PDE GAF domain residues are completely conserved. Aside from the PDEs, few GAF domains contain the full (R/K)XmNKXnD motif required for cGMP binding. However, two of the three adenylyl cyclases of Anabaena contain GAF domains that fit this pattern, suggesting that these enzymes could be regulated by cGMP.
The cGMP binding site structure (
Figure 7B) is consistent with previous proposals for the mechanism of selectivity for cGMP over cAMP (
McAllister‐Lucas et al., 1995;
Turko et al., 1996,
1999). Interactions between Asp289 and the guanine N1 and N2 offer at least a partial explanation for binding of cGMP in preference to cAMP (
McAllister‐Lucas et al., 1995;
Turko et al., 1996,
1999). The binding site suggests a possible explanation for the effects of the H258N mutation in PDE6B, which causes congenital stationary night blindness in humans (
Gal et al., 1994). In the PDE5‐GAFa–cGMP complex model, the counterpart of this residue, Ile170, is located very near the cGMP binding site, making it a good candidate for a direct interaction with cGMP.
The cGMP complex model suggests a possible mechanism for ligand‐induced conformational changes in PDE regulation. There is evidence for such allosteric regulation in several PDEs. cGMP binding allosterically stimulates hydrolysis of both cAMP and cGMP by the catalytic domain of PDE2 (
Stroop and Beavo, 1991). cGMP binding to allosteric sites on PDE5 does not directly regulate the catalytic rate but it is required for the subsequent phosphorylation of Ser92 by PKA and PKG (
Turko et al., 1998). In the case of PDE6, cGMP binding to the α and β catalytic subunits dramatically enhances their interaction with the regulatory γ subunit, and in turn, with transducin (
D'Amours and Cote, 1999;
Mou et al., 1999). The β6–α5 loop is predicted to be highly exposed and possibly disordered in the absence of cGMP. The loop is poised to form a lid over the cGMP upon binding (
Figure 7B). Among a number of PDE GAF domains, this loop contains a Gly–Lys sequence that could interact with the phosphate group. Such an interaction seems likely because, in its absence, interactions with the Arg174 and Lys277 alone would leave the cyclic phosphate substantially exposed to solvent. A conformational change such as a disorder→ order transition in this loop could serve to transmit the cGMP binding signal to other domains or subunits of the enzyme. The β2–β3 loop also abuts the cGMP site, and could potentially change conformation upon cGMP binding. This offers one model for the allosteric effects of cGMP in PDE regulation.
Conclusion
The crystal structure of a GAF domain has revealed substantial new insights into the evolution and function of a very large class of biological signaling and sensory transducers. The GAF domain proteins are now clearly linked in their evolution to the equally ubiquitous PAS domain‐containing class of signaling and sensory proteins. Indeed, there is considerable overlap between these two groups since a substantial number of proteins contain both PAS and GAF domains. The common theme among both classes is the binding, either covalent or non‐covalent, of a remarkably diverse set of regulatory small molecules. The putative ligands for many of the PAS and GAF domains remain unidentified, suggesting that there still exists a wealth of yet‐to‐be‐discovered small molecule signaling and sensory pathways.
The analysis of cGMP binding to the GAF domains of PDE5 revealed conclusively that these domains form a novel class of cyclic nucleotide receptors dissimilar to the ‘cNMP’ motif of CAP, PKA, PKG and the cyclic nucleotide‐gated ion channels. A combination of theoretical and mutational analysis revealed determinants for specific recognition of cGMP. The sequence determinants for cGMP binding have been expanded, defining a (R/K)XmNKXnD motif. This motif is rarely found in GAF domains other than those of the phosphodiesterases, suggesting that the cGMP binding function of these GAF domains is specialized and evolutionarily recent.