PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Trends Cell Biol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 July 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3383930
NIHMSID: NIHMS370712

Rho GTPase regulation by miRNAs and covalent modifications

Abstract

To date, most studies of Rho GTPase regulation have focused on the classic GTPase cycle – GTP binding and hydrolysis – controlled by guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs), GTPase-activating proteins (GAPs) and GDP-dissociation inhibitors (GDIs). Recent investigations have unveiled important additional regulatory mechanisms: microRNA (miRNA) regulating post-transcriptional processing of Rho GTPase-encoding mRNAs; palmitoylation and nuclear targeting affecting intracellular distribution; post-translational phosphorylation, transglutamination and AMPylation impacting Rho GTPase signaling; and ubiquitination controlling Rho GTPase protein stability and turnover. These modes of regulation add to the complexity of the Rho GTPase signaling network and allow precise spatiotemporal control of individual Rho GTPases. This review will discuss these ‘unconventional’ modes of regulation and their contribution to cellular function, focusing on post-transcriptional and post-translational events beyond the classic GTPase cycle regulatory model.

Keywords: small GTPases, microRNAs, ubiquitination, phosphorylation, transglutamination

An overview of the Rho GTPase regulatory cycle

The Rho GTPases, which belong to the Ras superfamily of 20–30 kDa GTP-binding proteins, include at least 20 members in higher eukaryotes that can be subdivided into six groups: Rho subfamily (RhoA, RhoB, RhoC); Rac subfamily (Rac1, Rac2, Rac3, RhoG); CDC42 subfamily (CDC42, Wrch1, TC10, Chp, TCL); Rnd subfamily (Rnd1, Rnd2, Rnd3); Rho BTB subfamily (RhoBTB1, RhoBTB2, RhoBTB3); and Miro subfamily (Miro1, Miro2) [1,2]. These proteins function in multiple cell processes including gene expression, cytoskeletal dynamics, survival, cell division, cell adhesion, polarity and vesicle trafficking [14]. Dysfunctional Rho GTPase regulated signaling underlies multiple forms of cancer, neurological abnormalities, immunological disorders and several other diseases [510]. While a subset of Rho GTPases are constitutively active, the majority act as molecular switches, cycling between the active, GTP-bound form and the inactive, GDP-bound form. Their activities can be influenced by multiple types and levels of spatiotemporal regulation that puts them in the context of a vast intracellular signaling network [1117]. Upon activation, each Rho GTPase may interact with several effector targets leading to physiologic responses.

Rho GTPases can be activated by intrinsic or extrinsic cues, setting off a signaling cascade [1,3,15]. In response to stimulatory signals, individual Rho GTPase activities are controlled by the GTP/GDP ratio and subcellular distribution in the cell through the joint work of multiple regulatory molecules: GEFs, which activate Rho GTPases by promoting GDP-to-GTP exchange; GAPs, which inactivate the GTPases by enhancing intrinsic GTP hydrolysis activity; and GDIs, which bind prenylated GDP-bound Rho proteins, allowing translocation of Rho GTPases between membranes and cytosol [1114,17] and protecting Rho GTPases from degradation [18]. This molecular switch regulatory mechanism forms the classic ‘GTPase cycle’ model (GTP-binding/GTP-hydrolysis) that has been the subject of extensive reviews previously [1517].

Adding to the complexity of the GTPase cycle, recent studies have revealed a few ‘unconventional’ mechanisms for the regulation of Rho GTPase signaling activities. These include post-transcriptional regulation by microRNAs (miRNAs), intracellular distribution by lipid and nuclear translocation signals, post-translational modifications via phosphorylation, transglutamination and AMPylation, and protein stability controlled by ubiquitination (Figure 1). In this review, we discuss these additional modes of Rho GTPase regulation, focusing on post-transcriptional regulation and post-translational covalent modifications. We present evidence that these mechanisms, combined with the GTPase cycle, are important for maintaining physiological levels of Rho GTPase activity in cells.

Figure 1
An overview of Rho GTPase regulatory mechanisms. GEFs, GAPs and GDIs represent the classic regulatory components controlling the GTP-binding/GTP-hydrolysis GTPase cycle and signaling activities of Rho GTPases. GEFs activate Rho GTPases by catalyzing the ...

miRNA regulation of Rho GTPase expression

To date, more than 1500 miRNAs have been identified in human cells [19]. These short, non-coding RNA molecules play critical roles in diverse physiological, developmental and pathological processes by controlling gene expression post-transcriptionally. In conjunction with Argonaute protein, miRNAs can silence target genes by either suppressing translation or degrading mRNA – in the former case, by partially complementing the 3′ untranslated region (3′ UTR) of cognate mRNAs to suppress protein synthesis [2022]. By regulating one or more mRNA targets, individual miRNAs can direct a developmental switch or tissue-specific gene expression [2022]. Through targeting and regulating Rho GTPase-encoding mRNAs, a number of miRNAs have been implicated in the regulation of gene expression of Rho GTPases (Table 1), thereby influencing pathophysiologic functions such as cardiac function, neuronal differentiation and tumorigenesis.

Table 1
Posttranscriptional regulation of Rho GTPases by miRNAs

Rho GTPases, RhoA and Cdc42 in particular, figure prominently in cardiac development and hypertrophy, and recent studies suggest that miRNAs contribute to their regulation. For example, miR-133 is down-regulated in mouse models and human patients with cardiac hypertrophy, and inhibits cardiac hypertrophy by targeting RhoA and Cdc42, which control cytoskeletal and myofibrillar rearrangements during hypertrophy, suggesting its potential therapeutic application in heart disease [23]. Similarly, miR-1, which targets Cdc42, is negatively regulated by homeobox transcription factor Tinman in the fly and its mammalian homologue Nkx2-5 in the mouse, both of which are involved in heart development and function [24]. miRNA targeting of Rho GTPases also regulates neuronal differentiation. miR-124, which is expressed in developing and adult neurons, regulates axon growth by suppressing Cdc42 and Rac1 expression [25].

Alterations in Rho GTPase gene expression levels, rather than constitutive mutations, often are associated with tumorigenesis and cancer progression. The cause of such an expression change may be attributed, at least in part, to regulation by miRNAs impacting abnormal signaling activity and function. Indeed, miRNAs are involved in many types of cancer, where they may regulate key processes of tumorigenesis and tumor progression, including metastasis, apoptosis, proliferation, and angiogenesis, by targeting oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes [26], including the Rho GTPases. The levels of miR-31 are inversely correlated with metastasis activity in human breast tumors, and miR-31 suppresses metastasis in vivo by coordinating repression of a cohort of metastasis-promoting genes, including RhoA; expression of exogenous RhoA partially reverses the metastasis defects induced by miR-31 overexpression [27,28]. On the other hand, miR-155, which is regulated by the transforming growth factor beta/Smad pathway, targets RhoA mRNA and contributes to epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and tight junction dissolution, as well as cell migration and invasion [29]. In addition, cell migration and invasion are positively regulated by the pro-metastatic Rho GTPase RhoC, whose expression is controlled indirectly through miR-10b [30]. In this case, the transcription factor Twist induces miR-10b, which inhibits translation of homeobox D10 mRNA to cause an increase in expression of RhoC [30].

In addition to suppressing metastasis of cancer cells, miRNAs can also negatively regulate proliferation, cell cycle and survival by targeting Rho GTPases. miR-137, which is aberrantly down-regulated in cancers [31], inhibits proliferation and invasion and induces G1 cell-cycle arrest in colorectal and gastric cancer cells. It does this by targeting Cdc42 mRNA at nucleotides (nt) 792 to 798 in the 3′ UTR – a region that is highly conserved [32,33]. Furthermore, miR-137 effectively inhibits Pak-MLC and ERK signaling in colorectal cancer cell lines, likely through suppression of Cdc42 [33]. Sequence analysis indicates that the 3′UTRs of RhoA (nt 1844–1852) and Cdc42 (nt 1382–1396) encode miR-185 target-matching sequences and are highly conserved across species [34]. miR-185 can inhibit the expression of RhoA and Cdc42 mRNAs through these matched 3′UTRs to inhibit proliferation and invasion, and induce G1 cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, mimicking the effects of knocking down RhoA and/or Cdc42 expression in colorectal cancer cells [34]. miR-29 family members (i.e. miR-29a, -29b and -29c) are capable of upregulating p53 to induce apoptosis; this is mediated by directly suppressing p85-alpha and Cdc42, which are negative regulators of p53 [35].

In some cases, miRNAs targeting Rho GTPases may positively regulate tumor cell functions. For instance, miR-21, an oncogenic miRNA that is highly expressed in multiple tumor types [36,37], positively regulates cell proliferation, migration, invasion, metastasis and survival – at least in part by targeting the tumor suppressor RhoB [38,39].

Subcellular distribution of Rho GTPases

Subcellular localization of Rho GTPases is an important mechanism for regulating their spatially unique functions. Many Rho proteins, for instance, cycle from the cytosol to plasma membranes, guided by a lipid isoprenylation moity at a conserved cysteine residue at the carboxy-terminal CAAX motif to provide a membrane anchor [41,42] (Figure 2). Working in the opposite direction, RhoGDIs bind to and negatively regulate Rho GTPases by extracting GTP-bound GTPases from the plasma membrane, and sequestering them in the cytosol in an inactive conformation [13]. A recent study has unveiled that Rac1 can incorporate palmitate at cysteine-178 after prenylation, which is regulated by the triproline-rich motif. This posttranslational modification targets Rac1 for stabilization at actin cytoskeleton-linked, ordered membrane regions [43]. On the other hand, isoprenylation and palmitoylation of RhoB seem to have different consequences – inducing endo-lysosomal localization and rapid degradation [44]. Palmitoylation might also be a regulatory mechanism for other Rho GTPases – such as RhoU [45] and RhoV [46] – associated with subcellular localization. During cell signaling, coronin1A can induce Rac1 translocation from the cytosol to membranes and activation via formation of an F-actin-dependent heteromolecular complex with ArhGEF7, Pak1, and RhoGDI [47].

Figure 2
Regulation of subcellular localization of Rac1 GTPase. Rac1 can incorporate palmitate at cysteine 178 after prenylation, which is regulated by the C-terminal triproline-rich motif. This posttranslational modification stabilizes Rac1 at actin-cytoskeleton-linked ...

Several Rho GTPases contain a polybasic region (PBR) – a series of adjacent lysine or arginine residues that often immediately precede the C-terminal CAAX sequence [48]. The PBR of Rac1, but not RhoA, has significant nuclear localization signal (NLS) activity (Figure 2). Nuclear accumulation of both Rac1 and SmgGDS is enhanced by Rac1 activation and diminished by mutation of the Rac1 PBR [49]. SmgGDS, the only known RhoGEF of the armadillo (ARM) family of proteins, shuttles between the nucleus and cytoplasm, similar to other ARM proteins [49]. Moreover, nuclear import of Rac1 is mediated by direct interaction with Karyopherin α2, a member of the alpha importin family of karyopherins that are involved in the first step of nuclear import – docking of proteins to the nuclear envelope [50,51]. Although this interaction is independent of GTP loading of Rac1, the second step of nuclear import – translocation across the nuclear envelope – is dependent on Rac1 activation [51].

Endogenous RhoA may also have a presence in the nucleus, along with upstream signaling partners RhoA-GAP DLC1 and p190 RhoGAP and downstream effectors ROCK II/ROKa and LIMK [5254]. Rho GDI1 interacts strongly with the PBR of RhoA, thereby keeping RhoA sequestered in the cytosol and away from membranes where it is active. When Rho GDI1 is depleted or silenced, the fraction of nuclear RhoA increases significantly, despite an overall reduction in RhoA protein [55].

The functional consequences of nuclear localization of Rac1 and RhoA – as well as other Rho GTPases – remain largely unknown. They may fulfill specific nuclear functions such as serving as co-transcriptional factors to regulate the cell cycle. Alternatively, sequestration of Rho GTPases in the nucleus could be a means to terminate cytosolic functions through ubiquitylation-mediated degradation.

Transglutamination, Phosphorylation and AMPylation of Rho GTPases

Rho GTPases are the preferred targets of various bacterial cytotoxins, including CNF1 from Escherichia coli and dermonecrotizing toxin (DNT) from Bordetella species. Cytotoxins commonly inactivate or constitutively activate Rho GTPases by covalently crosslinking bulky molecules (e.g. a phosphate group, amidocyanogen or AMP) to a crucial residue in the switch I or II region of the Rho GTPase structures essential for signaling functions. In addition, ADP-ribosylation and glucosylation represent two other types of covalent modification of Rho GTPases, both of which may lead to inactivation of Rho GTPase activities. These important regulatory mechanisms have been reviewed elsewhere recently [56]. Interestingly, a very recent study shows that Rac1, and particularly GTP-bound Rac1, can be SUMOylated in the polybasic region in vitro and in vivo, which is not required for its localization but is needed for optimal GTP loading and activation [57].

Transglutamination

The carboxamide nitrogen of the switch II region stabilizes the transition state during GTP hydrolysis, and is thus essential to the intrinsic and GAP-stimulated GTPase activity of small GTPases. Transglutamination permanently activates Rho GTPase proteins by targeting this essential switch II glutamine residue (Figure 3a) [58,59]. In addition, CNF1 catalyzes transglutamination of the conserved glutamine-63 of RhoA (glutamine-61 of Rac1 and Cdc42), which abolishes the intrinsic and GAP-stimulated GTPase activity – leading to permanent activation and inducing reorganization of actin cytoskeleton [58,59]. Upon activation by retinoic acid (RA), the tissue transglutaminase II (TGase) constitutively activates RhoA by targeting glutamine-63, leading to increased binding to a downstream target, RhoA-associated kinase-2 (ROCK-2) [60]. Similarly, RA increases expression of and activates TGase in SH-SY5Y cells, which leads to transamidation and, thus, activation of RhoA – thereby promoting formation of stress fibers and focal adhesion complexes, and inducing neuronal differentiation. Transamidated RhoA also promotes activation of ERK1/2 and p38γ MAP kinase [61]. In addition, serotonin-induced transamidation (serotonylation) of RhoA in hypoxic rats and patients with idiopathic pulmonary hypertension (iPH) could be involved in pulmonary artery remodeling and hypertension [62,63].

Figure 3
Transglutamination, phosphorylation and AMPylation of Rho GTPases to modulate signaling strengths. a. CNF1 catalyzes the deamidation of Glu63 of RhoA and Glu61 of Rac1 and Cdc42 into a glutamic acid, which blocks the GTP-hydrolytic activity of the Rho ...

Phosphorylation

Another way to covalently modify Rho GTPases is through protein kinase-mediated phosphorylation events. Several kinases, such as PKA, PKG, Src or Akt, can directly phosphorylate RhoA, Cdc42 and/or Rac1 [6467] (Figure 3b). RhoA is a substrate for cAMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA) and cGMP-dependent protein kinase G (PKG). Both phosphorylate RhoA at serine-188, which does not affect its intrinsic biochemical properties, but does trigger tight association of its GTP-bound form with RhoGDI, and extraction of RhoA from membranes [64,65,68]. Nerve growth factor (NGF) triggers phosphorylation of serine-188 on RhoA by PKA – blocking the ability of RhoAto associate with Rho-associated kinase (ROK), but not affecting its ability to interact with other targets (e.g. rhotekin, mDia-1 and PKN) [69], suggesting that phosphorylation of RhoA by PKA can differentially affect RhoA binding to its effectors [69]. In addition, the phosphorylation of RhoA in vascular smooth muscle cells has been implicated in the regulation of vascular homoeostasis, and several feedback regulations have been described [7072]. Based on a hypertensive knockout mouse lacking the Rho/Rac activator Vav2, a new signaling pathway involving Vav2, the GTPase Rac1 and the serine/threonine kinase Pak, has been discovered to contribute to nitric oxide – triggered blood vessel relaxation and normotensia [72]. A separate study showed that phosphorylation of tyrosine-64 on Cdc42 by Src tyrosine kinase increased its association with GDIs [66]. On the other hand, phosphorylation of serine-71 on Rac1 by serine/threonine kinase Akt seems to have different effects – inhibiting the GTP-binding activity of Rac1 with no significant change in GTPase activity [67]. Phosphorylation might also be a regulatory mechanism for other Rho GTPases – such as Rnd3/RhoE [73], RhoB [74] and RhoH [75]. Rnd3, for example, can be phosphorylated by ROCK I, and this phosphorylation increases Rnd3 stability and leads to subsequent cytosol localization, correlating with its ability to induce actin stress fibre disruption and inhibit Ras-induced cell transformation [73]. Compared with conventional regulation by GAPs, phosphorylation of most Rho GTPases may maintain a reservoir of GTP-loaded Rho GTPases that can be mobilized in the absence of activation by GEFs, or are inaccessible to activation by GEFs [76].

AMPylation

AMPylation represents a newly discovered posttranslational modification used to stably modify RhoGTPases with AMP. Yersinia YopT and Fic domains of prokaryotic immunoglobulin-binding protein A (IbpA) are distinct protein modification enzymes. YopT is a cysteine protease that cleaves and inactivates Rho GTPases [77], while IbpA induces cytotoxicity in infected cells by catalyzing an adenosine monophosphate (AMP) modification on threonine residues of protein substrates. Transient transfection of HeLa cells with EGFP-YopT or IbpA led to drastic cytoskeletal collapse by targeting the host Rho GTPases [7779]. The IbpA-induced reaction depends on the presence of a conserved histidine in the Fic domain’s core motif HPFxxGNGR, and covalent attachment of AMP by a phosphodiester bond, which may be reversibly removed by phosphodiesterases [80]. The resulting AMPylation prevents Rho GTPase interaction with downstream effectors, thereby inhibiting actin assembly and inducing cell rounding [78,79] (Figure 3c). Huntingtin yeast-interacting protein E (HYPE), the only human protein containing a Fic domain, is also capable of adding AMP to RhoA, Rac1 and Cdc42 and catalyzing the modification of similarly sized proteins in vitro; mutant HypE (H295A) cannot do this. Although prokaryotic and HYPE Fic motifs are highly similar, ectopic expression of HYPE in HeLa cells did not induce a cell-rounding phenotype; perhaps because HYPE expression is tightly controlled in mammalian cells and/or its activity is compartmentalized [79]. Understanding the diverse mechanisms used by bacterial effectors and toxins to regulate host GTPase activity will help assess the pathogenicity and toxicity of bacterial pathogens, and prevent the diseases that they cause. Bacterial protein toxins that modify and regulate host Rho GTPases are the subject of an excellent recent review [81].

Ubiquitylation-based regulation of Rho GTPases

Ubiquitylation, the covalent attachment of ubiquitin or polyubiquitin to eukaryotic proteins, regulates a broad range of critical cellular functions overlapping with that of Rho GTPases such as cell survival, cytoskeletal organization, cell-cycle progression, vesicle trafficking and cell migration. Covalent attachment of the 8-kDa ubiquitin polypeptide to lysine residues on the target depends on a cascade of transfer reactions between ubiquitin-carrier proteins. Polyubiquitin chains are formed when additional ubiquitin molecules are attached to one of the seven lysine residues of the previously cross-linked ubiquitin molecule [82]. At the protein level, members of the Rho GTPase family, Rac1, RhoA and Cdc42 in particular, are subject to regulation by the ubiquitin-proteasome system (UPS) in a balancing act with constitutive activation [83,84] (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Regulation of Rho GTPase protein stability by ubiquitylation. RhoA, Rac1 and Cdc42 can be subject to ubiquitylation-mediated proteasomal degradation. Smurf1, a HECT domain E3 ubiquitin ligase, is capable of regulating cell polarity and protrusion formation ...

The first evidence of Rac GTPase regulation by ubiquitylation came from Rac1-induced reactive oxygen species production on the turnover of Rac1 itself in human aortic endothelial cells [85]. Rac1 turnover is indirectly regulated by UPS in a redox-sensitive fashion [85]. Inhibition of NADPH oxidase activity is connected to a proteasome-dependent increase in active Rac1 expression, but not inactive Rac1 – consistent with the effects of proteasome inhibitors [85]. Inhibition of Rac1 by UPS-mediated degradation also occurs at EMT onset – during the early stages of epithelial cell scattering [86]. Rac1 protein levels may also be controlled by Caveolin 1 (Cav1) regulation of UPS-mediated degradation of activated Rac1, in an adhesion-dependent fashion – further supporting the notion that Rac1 signaling during EMT is inhibited by UPS-mediated degradation, in addition to or instead of inactivation by Rho GAPs [87]. Moreover, Cav1 deletion leads to an increase in non- and mono-ubiquitylated Rac1, suggesting that Cav1 selectively regulates degradation of poly-ubiquitylated activated Rac1 [87,88]. Mutational analysis of all lysine residues in Rac1 revealed that ubiquitin chains are preferentially cross-linked to lysine-147, a solvent-accessible residue with a similar conformation in Rac1b, an alternative splice form of Rac1 [89]. The HECT-domain-containing E3-ubiquitin-ligase tumor suppressor HACE1 preferentially binds to GTP-bound Rac1 for ubiquitylation [90]. HACE1 expression increases the ubiquitylation of Rac1, while RNAi-mediated depletion of HACE1 blocks the ubiquitylation of active Rac1 and increases levels of GTP-bound Rac1 [90].

RhoA, constitutively activated by cytotoxic necrotizing factor 1 (CNF1) from Escherichia coli, is also subject to UPS-mediated degradation [84,91]. The E3 ligase Smurf1, which regulates Smad protein stability, directly targets RhoA for UPS-mediated degradation – thereby regulating epithelial cell morphology [92], cell polarity [93,94], protrusive formation [93,95], neurite outgrowth [96] and tumor-cell migration and invasion (in the last case by inhibiting Rho kinase [ROCK] activity and myosin light chain 2 phosphorylation) [97]. Ubiquitin chains are primarily cross-linked to two lysine residues located at the N-terminus of RhoA in this process [92], whereas the C2 domain of Smurf1 is necessary and sufficient for binding RhoA and, therefore, targeting it for ubiquitination [95]. Interestingly, PKCζ, an effector of the Cdc42/Rac1-PAR6 polarity complex, binds to and colocalizes with Smurf1 at membrane protrusions, where it controls local downregulation of RhoA signaling to promote cell motility [93]. Cullin-3 also shows E3 ligase activity for RhoA, but does not bear any resemblance to Smurf1 [98]. RhoA is ubiquitinated when RhoA-binding BTB domain adaptors (BACURDs) form complexes with ubiquitin and Cullin-3 ligase [98]. Furthermore, Cullin-3 specifically targets GDP-bound RhoA for ubiquitination – not GTP-bound RhoA, RhoB, RhoC, Cdc42 or Rac1 [98]. Similar to suppression of Smurf1, loss of Cullin-3 and/or BACURD leads to increased RhoA protein levels, and dramatically promotes actin stress fiber formation [98]. As with RhoA and Rac1, CNF1-activated Cdc42 is also subject to UPS-mediated degradation, although the mechanism by which it is targeted for ubiquitylation is not well understood [84].

Just as ubiquitination of Rho GTPases is critical for proper regulation of numerous cell processes, removal of ubiquitin by deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) may also be an important step in Rho GTPase stability control, and this aspect of our understanding has only begun to emerge. For example, Cav1 selectively regulates mono-ubiquitylated Rac1, which can be either de-ubiquitylated by members of the ubiquitin-specific protease (USP) family or poly-ubiquitylated, followed by proteasomal degradation [87,88]. While de-ubiquitination is not well understood, DUBs play a central role. Loss of USP17, an immediate-early gene that belongs to a subfamily of cytokine-inducible DUBs, blocks normal cytoskeletal rearrangements and chemokine-induced membrane localization of RhoA, Rac1 and Cdc42 – perhaps mediated by RCE1 and/or other targets [99].

Concluding remarks

It has been over two decades since three major classes of regulators for the Rho family GTPases, RhoGEFs, RhoGAPs and RhoGDIs, were identified. This led to a widely accepted GTPase cycle model for Rho GTPase regulation in which most Rho family members act as molecular switches, similar to what has been proposed for other Ras-superfamily small GTPases. Recent advances in this field have revealed several additional regulatory mechanisms, discussed in this review, that yield a broader array of controls for fine-tuning the activity and function of individual Rho GTPases. In addition to what is presented here, epigenetic modification of Rho GTPase genes may also play a role (Figure 1) as suggested by recent studies of RhoB and RhoE regulation by histone deacetylation [100,101]. It is very likely that future research will reveal similar regulatory mechanisms, via miRNA or covalent modifications, for the classical Rho regulators (i.e. GEF, GAP and GDI); to this end, extensive studies have pointed to phosphorylation as one of the major events regulating Rho GAP and Rho GEF activities [102,103]. These possible regulatory mechanisms will each need to be analyzed in various physiological, pathological and signaling contexts because each mode of regulation could be context-dependent, as individual Rho GTPases may function differently in each cell type [3,4]. For subcellular localization of Rho GTPases, the exact mechanism and functional consequences of nuclear translocation must be clearly defined. The complexity of Rho GTPase regulation in time and intracellular space will likely continue to grow, particularly in the network of small GTPase crosstalk [104]. Such added sophistication of Rho GTPase regulation mechanism allows cells to strictly coordinate the activities of multiple small GTPases and associated pathways in controlling diverse cell behaviors.

Acknowledgments

We thank members of our laboratory for critical readings of the manuscript and productive discussions. Work in the Zheng laboratory was supported in part by US National Institutes of Health grants P30 DK090971, R01 CA150547 and R01 CA141341.

Glossary

RhoA
Ras Homolog gene family, member A
Cdc42
Cell Division Cycle 42
Rac1
Ras-related C3 botulinum toxin substrate 1
GEFs
Guanine nucleotide Exchange Factors
GAPs
GTPase Activating Proteins
GDIs
Guaninenucleotide-Dissociation Inhibitors
UPS
Ubiquitin–Proteasome System
CNF1
Cytotoxic Necrotizing Factor 1
HACE1
HECT domain and Ankyrin repeat Containing E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase
DNT
Dermonecrotizing Toxin
ROCK-2
RhoA-associated kinase-2
HYPE
Huntingtin Yeast-interacting Protein E
Coro1A
Coronin1A
NLS
Nuclear Localization Signal
EMT
Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition
PKA
cAMP-dependent Protein Kinase A
PKG
cGMP-dependent Protein Kinase G
PDEs
Phosphodiesterases
KPNA2
Karyopherin α2

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

1. Etienne-Manneville S, et al. Rho GTPases in cell biology. Nature. 2002;420:629–35. [PubMed]
2. Jaffe AB, Hall A. Rho GTPases: biochemistry and biology. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2005;21:247–69. [PubMed]
3. Wang L, Zheng Y. Cell type-specific functions of Rho GTPases revealed by gene targeting in mice. Trends Cell Biol. 2007;17:58–64. [PubMed]
4. Heasman SJ, Ridley AJ. Mammalian Rho GTPases: new insights into their functions from in vivo studies. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:690–701. [PubMed]
5. Sahai E, Marshall CJ. RHO-GTPases and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:133–42. [PubMed]
6. Newey SE, et al. Rho GTPases, dendritic structure, and mental retardation. J Neurobiol. 2005;64:58–74. [PubMed]
7. Boettner B, Van Aelst L. The role of Rho GTPases in disease development. Gene. 2002;286:155–174. [PubMed]
8. Mulloy JC, et al. Rho GTPases in hematopoiesis and hemopathies. Blood. 2010;115:936–47. [PubMed]
9. Zugaza JL, et al. Inverted signaling hierarchy between RAS and RAC in T-lymphocytes. Oncogene. 2004;23:5823–33. [PubMed]
10. Watabe-Uchida M, et al. Regulators of Rho GTPases in neuronal development. J Neurosci. 2006;26:10633–5. [PubMed]
11. Bustelo XR, et al. GTP-binding proteins of the Rho/Rac family: regulation, effectors and functions in vivo. Bioessays. 2007;29:356–70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
12. Bishop AL, Hall A. Rho GTPases and their effector proteins. Biochem J. 2000;348:241–255. [PubMed]
13. DerMardirossian C, et al. GDIs: central regulatory molecules in Rho GTPase activation. Trends Cell Biol. 2005;15:356–63. [PubMed]
14. Zheng Y. Dbl family guanine nucleotide exchange factors. Trends Biochem Sci. 2001;26:724–732. [PubMed]
15. Moon SY, Zheng Y. Rho GTPase-activating proteins in cell regulation. Trends Cell Biol. 2003;13:13–22. [PubMed]
16. Schmidt A, Hall A. Guanine nucleotide exchange factors for Rho GTPases: turning on the switch. Gene & Dev. 2002;16:1587–1609. [PubMed]
17. Rossman KL, et al. GEF means go: turning on RHO GTPases with guanine nucleotide- exchange factors. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2005;6:167–80. [PubMed]
18. Boulter E, et al. Regulation of Rho GTPase crosstalk, degradation and activity by RhoGDI1. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:477–83. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Griffiths-Jones S, et al. miRBase: tools for microRNA genomics. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008;36:D154–D158. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
20. Chi SW, et al. Argonaute HITS-CLIP decodes microRNA-mRNA interaction maps. Nature. 2009;460:479–86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell. 2004;116:281–97. [PubMed]
22. Lai EC. MicroRNAs are complementary to 3′ UTR sequence motifs that mediate negative post-transcriptional regulation. Nat Genet. 2002;30:363–364. [PubMed]
23. Carè A, et al. MicroRNA-133 controls cardiac hypertrophy. Nat Med. 2007;13:613–8. [PubMed]
24. Qian L, et al. Tinman/Nkx2-5 acts via miR-1 and upstream of Cdc42 to regulate heart function across species. J Cell Biol. 2011;193:1181–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Yu JY, et al. MicroRNA miR-124 regulates neurite outgrowth during neuronal differentiation. Exp Cell Res. 2008;314:2618–33. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Calin GA, Croce CM. MicroRNA signatures in human cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:857–66. [PubMed]
27. Valastyan S, et al. A pleiotropically acting microRNA, miR-31, inhibits breast cancer metastasis. Cell. 2009;137:1032–46. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
28. Valastyan S, et al. Concurrent suppression of integrin alpha5, radixin, and RhoA phenocopies the effects of miR-31 on metastasis. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5147–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Kong W, et al. MicroRNA-155 is regulated by the transforming growth factor beta/Smad pathway and contributes to epithelial cell plasticity by targeting RhoA. Mol Cell Biol. 2008;28:6773–84. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Ma L, et al. Tumour invasion and metastasis initiated by microRNA-10b in breast cancer. Nature. 2007;449:682–8. [PubMed]
31. Bandres E, et al. Epigenetic regulation of microRNA expression in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:2723–43. [PubMed]
32. Chen Q, et al. miR-137 is frequently down-regulated in gastric cancer and is a negative regulator of Cdc42. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:2009–16. [PubMed]
33. Liu M, et al. miR-137 targets Cdc42 expression, induces cell cycle G1 arrest and inhibits invasion in colorectal cancer cells. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:1269–79. [PubMed]
34. Liu M, et al. miR-185 targets RhoA and Cdc42 expression and inhibits the proliferation potential of human colorectal cells. Cancer Lett. 2011;301:151–60. [PubMed]
35. Park SY, et al. miR-29 miRNAs activate p53 by targeting p85 alpha and CDC42. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009;16:23–9. [PubMed]
36. Asangani IA, et al. MicroRNA-21 (miR-21) post-transcriptionally downregulates tumor suppressor Pdcd4 and stimulates invasion, intravasation and metastasis in colorectal cancer. Oncogene. 2008;27:2128–36. [PubMed]
37. Chan JA, et al. MicroRNA-21 is an antiapoptotic factor in human glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65:6029–6033. [PubMed]
38. Liu M, et al. miR-21 targets the tumor suppressor RhoB and regulates proliferation, invasion and apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells. FEBS Lett. 2011;585:2998–3005. [PubMed]
39. Connolly EC, et al. Overexpression of miR-21 promotes an in vitro metastatic phenotype by targeting the tumor suppressor RHOB. Mol Cancer Res. 2010;8:691–700. [PubMed]
40. Xia W, et al. MicroRNA-200b regulates cyclin D1 expression and promotes S-phase entry by targeting RND3 in HeLa cells. Mol Cell Biochem. 2010;344:261–6. [PubMed]
41. Roberts PJ, et al. Rho Family GTPase modification and dependence on CAAX motif-signaled posttranslational modification. J Biol Chem. 2008;283:25150–63. [PubMed]
42. Mitin N, et al. Posttranslational lipid modification of Rho family small GTPases. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;827:87–95. [PubMed]
43. Navarro-Lérida I, et al. A palmitoylation switch mechanism regulates Rac1 function and membrane organization. EMBO J. 2011;31:534–51. [PubMed]
44. Pérez-Sala D, et al. The C-terminal sequence of RhoB directs protein degradation through an endo-lysosomal pathway. PLoS One. 2009;4:e8117. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Berzat AC, et al. Transforming activity of the Rho family GTPase, Wrch-1, a Wnt-regulated Cdc42 homolog, is dependent on a novel carboxyl-terminal palmitoylation motif. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:33055–65. [PubMed]
46. Chenette EJ, et al. Critical and distinct roles of amino- and carboxyl-terminal sequences in regulation of the biological activity of the Chp atypical Rho GTPase. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:13784–92. [PubMed]
47. Castro-Castro A, et al. Coronin 1A promotes a cytoskeletal-based feedback loop that facilitates Rac1 translocation and activation. EMBO J. 2011;30:3913–27. [PubMed]
48. Williams CL. The polybasic region of Ras and Rho family small GTPases: a regulator of protein interactions and membrane association and a site of nuclear localization signal sequences. Cell Signal. 2003;15:1071–80. [PubMed]
49. Lanning CC, et al. Novel mechanism of the co-regulation of nuclear transport of SmgGDS and Rac1. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:12495–506. [PubMed]
50. Lanning CC, et al. The Rac1 C-terminal polybasic region regulates the nuclear localization and protein degradation of Rac1. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:44197–210. [PubMed]
51. Sandrock K, et al. The nuclear import of the small GTPase Rac1 is mediated by the direct interaction with karyopherin alpha2. Traffic. 2010;11:198–209. [PubMed]
52. Scholz RP, et al. DLC1 interacts with 14-3-3 proteins to inhibit RhoGAP activity and block nucleocytoplasmic shuttling. J Cell Sci. 2009;122:92–102. [PubMed]
53. Tanaka T, et al. Nuclear Rho kinase, ROCK2, targets p300 acetyltransferase. J Biol Chem. 2006;281:15320–15329. [PubMed]
54. Yokoo T, et al. p57Kip2 regulates actin dynamics by binding and translocating LIM-kinase 1 to the nucleus. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:52919–52923. [PubMed]
55. Dubash AD, et al. The small GTPase RhoA localizes to the nucleus and is activated by Net1 and DNA damage signals. PLoS One. 2011;6:e17380. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Visvikis O, et al. Direct modifications of Rho proteins: deconstructing GTPase regulation. Biol Cell. 2010;102:377–89. [PubMed]
57. Castillo-Lluva S, et al. SUMOylation of the GTPase Rac1 is required for optimal cell migration. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:1078–85. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58. Flatau G, et al. Toxin-induced activation of the G protein p21 Rho by deamidation of glutamine. Nature. 1997;387:729–33. [PubMed]
59. Schmidt G, et al. Gln 63 of Rho is deamidated by Escherichia coli cytotoxic necrotizing factor-1. Nature. 1997;387:725–9. [PubMed]
60. Singh US, et al. Role of transglutaminase II in retinoic acid-induced activation of RhoA-associated kinase-2. EMBO J. 2001;20:2413–23. [PubMed]
61. Singh US, et al. Tissue transglutaminase mediates activation of RhoA and MAP kinase pathways during retinoic acid-induced neuronal differentiation of SH-SY5Y cells. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:391–9. [PubMed]
62. Guilluy C, et al. Transglutaminase-dependent RhoA activation and depletion by serotonin in vascular smooth muscle cells. J Biol Chem. 2007;282:2918–28. [PubMed]
63. Guilluy C, et al. RhoA and Rho kinase activation in human pulmonary hypertension: role of 5-HT signaling. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;179:1151–8. [PubMed]
64. Lang P, et al. Protein kinase A phosphorylation of RhoA mediates the morphological and functional effects of cyclic AMP in cytotoxic lymphocytes. EMBO J. 1996;15:510–9. [PubMed]
65. Sauzeau V, et al. Cyclic GMP-dependent protein kinase signaling pathway inhibits RhoA-induced Ca2+ sensitization of contraction in vascular smooth muscle. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:21722–9. [PubMed]
66. Tu S, et al. Epidermal growth factor-dependent regulation of Cdc42 is mediated by the Src tyrosine kinase. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:49293–300. [PubMed]
67. Kwon T, et al. Akt protein kinase inhibits Rac1-GTP binding through phosphorylation at serine 71 of Rac1. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:423–8. [PubMed]
68. Ellerbroek SM, et al. Serine phosphorylation negatively regulates RhoA in vivo. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:19023–31. [PubMed]
69. Nusser N, et al. Serine phosphorylation differentially affects RhoA binding to effectors: implications to NGF-induced neurite outgrowth. Cell Signal. 2006;18:704–14. [PubMed]
70. Savoia C, et al. Negative regulation of RhoA/Rho kinase by angiotensin II type 2 receptor in vascular smooth muscle cells: role in angiotensin II-induced vasodilation in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. J Hypertens. 2005;23:1037–45. [PubMed]
71. Rolli-Derkinderen M, et al. Phosphorylation of serine 188 protects RhoA from ubiquitin/proteasome-mediated degradation in vascular smooth muscle cells. Circ Res. 2005;96:1152–60. [PubMed]
72. Sauzeau V, et al. The Rho/Rac exchange factor Vav2 controls nitric oxide-dependent responses in mouse vascular smooth muscle cells. J Clin Invest. 2010;120:315–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
73. Riento K, et al. RhoE function is regulated by ROCK I-mediated phosphorylation. EMBO J. 2005;24:1170–80. [PubMed]
74. Tillement V, et al. Phosphorylation of RhoB by CK1 impedes actin stress fiber organization and epidermal growth factor receptor stabilization. Exp Cell Res. 2008;314:2811–21. [PubMed]
75. Gu Y, et al. RhoH GTPase recruits and activates Zap70 required for T cell receptor signaling and thymocyte development. Nat Immunol. 2006;7:1182–90. [PubMed]
76. Loirand G, et al. Regulation of Rho proteins by phosphorylation in the cardiovascular system. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2006;16:199–204. [PubMed]
77. Shao F, et al. A Yersinia effector and a Pseudomonas avirulence protein define a family of cysteine proteases functioning in bacterial pathogenesis. Cell. 2002;109:575–88. [PubMed]
78. Yarbrough ML, et al. AMPylation of Rho GTPases by Vibrio VopS disrupts effector binding and downstream signaling. Science. 2009;323:269–72. [PubMed]
79. Worby CA, et al. The fic domain: regulation of cell signaling by adenylylation. Mol Cell. 2009;34:93–103. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Kinch LN, et al. Fido, a novel AMPylation domain common to fic, doc, and AvrB. PLoS One. 2009;4:e5818. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
81. Aktories K. Bacterial protein toxins that modify host regulatory GTPases. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:487–98. [PubMed]
82. Kerscher O, et al. Modification of proteins by ubiquitin and ubiquitin-like proteins. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2006;22:159–80. [PubMed]
83. Flatau G, et al. Toxin-induced activation of the G protein p21 Rho by deamidation of glutamine. Nature. 1997;387:729–33. [PubMed]
84. Doye A, et al. CNF1 exploits the ubiquitin-proteasome machinery to restrict Rho GTPase activation for bacterial host cell invasion. Cell. 2002;111:553–64. [PubMed]
85. Kovacic HN, et al. Redox regulation of human Rac1 stability by the proteasome in human aortic endothelial cells. J Biol Chem. 2001;276:45856–61. [PubMed]
86. Lynch EA, et al. Proteasome-mediated degradation of Rac1-GTP during epithelial cell scattering. Mol Biol Cell. 2006;17:2236–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
87. Nethe M, et al. Focal-adhesion targeting links caveolin-1 to a Rac1-degradation pathway. J Cell Sci. 2010;123:1948–58. [PubMed]
88. Nethe M, Hordijk PL. The role of ubiquitylation and degradation in RhoGTPase signalling. J Cell Sci. 2010;123:4011–8. [PubMed]
89. Visvikis O, et al. Activated Rac1, but not the tumorigenic variant Rac1b, is ubiquitinated on Lys 147 through a JNK-regulated process. FEBS J. 2008;275:386–96. [PubMed]
90. Torrino S, et al. The E3 ubiquitin-ligase HACE1 catalyzes the ubiquitylation of active Rac1. Dev Cell. 2011;21:959–65. [PubMed]
91. Zhang Y, et al. Smurf1: a link between cell polarity and ubiquitination. Cell Cycle. 2004;3:391–2. [PubMed]
92. Ozdamar B, et al. Regulation of the polarity protein Par6 by TGFbeta receptors controls epithelial cell plasticity. Science. 2005;307:1603–9. [PubMed]
93. Wang HR, et al. Regulation of cell polarity and protrusion formation by targeting RhoA for degradation. Science. 2003;302:1775–9. [PubMed]
94. Wang HR, et al. Degradation of RhoA by Smurf1 ubiquitin ligase. Methods Enzymol. 2006;406:437–47. [PubMed]
95. Tian M, et al. Binding of RhoA by the C2 domain of E3 ligase Smurf1 is essential for Smurf1-regulated RhoA ubiquitination and cell protrusive activity. FEBS Lett. 2011;585:2199–204. [PubMed]
96. Bryan B, et al. Ubiquitination of RhoA by Smurf1 promotes neurite outgrowth. FEBS Lett. 2005;579:1015–9. [PubMed]
97. Sahai E, et al. Smurf1 regulates tumor cell plasticity and motility through degradation of RhoA leading to localized inhibition of contractility. J Cell Biol. 2007;176:35–42. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
98. Chen Y, et al. Cullin mediates degradation of RhoA through evolutionarily conserved BTB adaptors to control actin cytoskeleton structure and cell movement. Mol Cell. 2009;35:841–55. [PubMed]
99. de la Vega M, et al. The deubiquitinating enzyme USP17 is essential for GTPase subcellular localization and cell motility. Nat Commun. 2011;2:259. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
100. Yoon YS, et al. RhoB is epigenetically regulated in an age- and tissue-specific manner. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2007;362:164–9. [PubMed]
101. Chen J, et al. Epigenetic modification of RhoE expression in gastric cancer cells. Oncol Rep. 2011;25:173–80. [PubMed]
102. Tcherkezian J, et al. The human orthologue of CdGAP is a phosphoprotein and a GTPase-activating protein for Cdc42 and Rac1 but not RhoA. Biol Cell. 2006;98:445–56. [PubMed]
103. Itoh RE, et al. Phosphorylation and activation of the Rac1 and Cdc42 GEF Asef in A431 cells stimulated by EGF. J Cell Sci. 2008;121:2635–42. [PubMed]
104. Guilluy C, et al. Rho protein crosstalk: another social network? Trends Cell Biol. 2011;21:718–26. [PMC free article] [PubMed]