GPCR receptor phosphorylation and endocytosis are not necessary to switch polarized growth between internal cues during pheromone response in S. cerevisiae

Chemotactic/chemotropic cells follow accurately the direction of gradients of regulatory molecules. Many G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCR) function as chemoattractant receptors to guide polarized responses. In "a" mating type yeast, the GPCR Ste2 senses the α-cell's pheromone. Previously, phosphorylation and trafficking of this receptor have been implicated in the process of gradient sensing, where cells dynamically correct growth. Correction is often necessary since yeast have intrinsic polarity sites that interfere with a correct initial gradient decoding. We have recently showed that when actively dividing (not in G1) yeast are exposed to a uniform pheromone concentration, they initiate a pheromone-induced polarization next to the mother-daughter cytokinesis site. Then, they reorient their growth to the intrinsic polarity site. Here, to study if Ste2 phosphorylation and internalization are involved in this process, we generated receptor variants combining three types of mutated signals for the first time: phosphorylation, ubiquitylation and the NPFX1,2D Sla1-binding motif. We first characterized their effect on endocytosis and found that these processes regulate internalization in a more complex manner than previously shown. Interestingly, we showed that receptor phosphorylation can drive internalization independently of ubiquitylation and the NPFX1,2D motif. When tested in our assays, cells expressing either phosphorylation or endocytosis-deficient receptors were able to switch away from the cytokinesis site to find the intrinsic polarity site as efficiently as their WT counterparts. Thus, we conclude that these processes are not necessary for the reorientation of polarization.

Heat-stress triggers MAPK crosstalk to turn on the hyperosmotic response pathway

Cells make decisions based on a combination of external and internal signals. In yeast, the high osmolarity response (HOG) is a mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway that responds to a variety of stimuli, and it is central to the general stress response. Here we studied the effect of heat-stress (HS) on HOG. Using live-cell reporters and genetics, we show that HS promotes Hog1 phosphorylation and Hog1-dependent gene expression, exclusively via the Sln1 phosphorelay branch, and that the strength of the activation is larger in yeast adapted to high external osmolarity. HS stimulation of HOG is indirect. First, we show that HS causes glycerol loss, necessary for HOG activation. Preventing glycerol efflux by deleting the glyceroporin FPS1 or its regulators RGC1 and ASK10/RGC2, or by increasing external glycerol, greatly reduced HOG activation. Second, we found that HOG stimulation by HS depended on the operation of a second MAPK pathway, the cell-wall integrity (CWI), a well-known mediator of HS, since inactivating Pkc1 or deleting the MAPK SLT2 greatly reduced HOG activation. Our data suggest that the main role of the CWI in this process is to stimulate glycerol loss. We found that in yeast expressing the constitutively open channel mutant (Fps1-Δ11), HOG activity was independent of Slt2. In summary, we suggest that HS causes a reduction in turgor due to the loss of glycerol and the accompanying water, and that this is what actually stimulates HOG. Thus, taken together, our findings highlight a central role for Fps1, and the metabolism of glycerol, in the communication between the yeast MAPK pathways, essential for survival and reproduction in changing environments.

Yeast GPCR signaling reflects the fraction of occupied receptors, not the number

According to receptor theory, the effect of a ligand depends on the amount of agonist-receptor complex. Therefore, changes in receptor abundance should have quantitative effects. However, the response to pheromone in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is robust (unaltered) to increases or reductions in the abundance of the G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR), Ste2, responding instead to the fraction of occupied receptor. We found experimentally that this robustness originates during G-protein activation. We developed a complete mathematical model of this step, which suggested the ability to compute fractional occupancy depends on the physical interaction between the inhibitory regulator of G-protein signaling (RGS), Sst2, and the receptor. Accordingly, replacing Sst2 by the heterologous hsRGS4, incapable of interacting with the receptor, abolished robustness. Conversely, forcing hsRGS4:Ste2 interaction restored robustness. Taken together with other results of our work, we conclude that this GPCR pathway computes fractional occupancy because ligand-bound GPCR-RGS complexes stimulate signaling while unoccupied complexes actively inhibit it. In eukaryotes, many RGSs bind to specific GPCRs, suggesting these complexes with opposing activities also detect fraction occupancy by a ratiometric measurement. Such complexes operate as push-pull devices, which we have recently described.