Abstract
A single-molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) method has been developed to observe the activation of the small G protein Ras at the level of individual molecules. KB cells expressing H- or K-Ras fused with YFP (donor) were microinjected with the fluorescent GTP analogue BodipyTR-GTP (acceptor), and the epidermal growth factor-induced binding of BodipyTR-GTP to YFP-(H or K)-Ras was monitored by single-molecule FRET. On activation, Ras diffusion was greatly suppressed/immobilized, suggesting the formation of large, activated Ras-signaling complexes. These complexes may work as platforms for transducing the Ras signal to effector molecules, further suggesting that Ras signal transduction requires more than simple collisions with effector molecules. GAP334-GFP recruited to the membrane was also stationary, suggesting its binding to the signaling complex. The single-molecules FRET method developed here provides a powerful technique to study the signal-transduction mechanisms of various G proteins.
The small G protein Ras, an oncogene product, works as a binary switch in many important intracellular signaling pathways (1, 2) and, therefore, has been one of the focal targets of signal-transduction investigations and drug development. However, the mechanism by which Ras transduces the signal to the downstream effector molecules has remained elusive. For example, the effector molecule Raf-1 kinase is activated by Ras, but how this activation occurs is unknown, although a dimerization mechanism through Ras dimers and other protein factors has been proposed (3). Caveolae/rafts (4-8) and scaffolding proteins for activated Ras, such as SUR-8 (9), Spred (10), and Galectin-1 (8), may be involved in signal transduction. Regarding Raf activation, the further involvement of Raf-scaffolding proteins, such as KSR and 14-3-3, has been suspected (11, 12). Despite these intensive efforts to understand the signal-transduction mechanism from Ras to its effector molecules, the means by which these scaffolding proteins, specialized membrane domains, and oligomerization processes are involved, selected, and orchestrated for the activation of the Ras effector molecules have remained unknown.
To facilitate approaches to this difficult but important problem, in this research, we have developed a method to visualize the activation of single individual molecules of Ras and the behavior of activated Ras molecules at video rate. Such a single-molecule method would allow direct investigations of the interaction of activated Ras with its effector and scaffolding proteins and its localization in specialized domains, which would provide valuable information for understanding the signal-transduction mechanism after Ras becomes activated. The activation of single Ras molecules was visualized by using single-molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) (13-15). This method enabled us to detect the slowing and immobilization of activated Ras, which suggests the cooperative formation of large, activated Ras-signaling complexes for signal transduction, rather than simple collisional mechanisms. Previously, Mochizuki et al. (16) developed a method to detect Ras activation by using CFP and YFP, but because single molecules of CFP are not detectable by the available technology (A.K., unpublished observations), this FRET probe cannot be used for single-molecule studies.
Materials and Methods
Cell Culture and Transfection. Plasmid preparations are described in Supporting Text, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site. KB cells were transfected by using LipofectAMINE Plus (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) with each expression plasmid. The cells stably expressing YFPH-Ras molecules were selected with 0.3 mg/ml G418, and positive clones were picked up with micropipettes. Cells cultured without FBS for at least 12 h before epidermal growth factor (EGF) stimulation were microinjected with 2 mM BodipyTRGTP, with an Eppendorf Microinjection System. About 3 min after the microinjection, the single-molecule fluorescence observation was initiated. Cells were then stimulated with 20 nM EGF. The pull-down assay for Ras activation (17, 18) and evaluation of EGF receptor phosphorylation (19) were carried out as described. Treatment of the cells with 1 μM latrunculin B was carried out under the microscope at 37°C, and the single-molecule observation was started 2 min after the addition of latrunculin B and completed within 5 min.
Single-Molecule Fluorescence and FRET Observations. An objective-lens-type total internal reflection fluorescence microscope were built on an Olympus inverted microscope (IX-70) as described (20). The fluorescence images of YFP and BodipyTR were separated by a dichroic mirror (600 nm), and projected into two detection arms with bandpass filters (500-570 nm for YFP and 605-700 nm for BodipyTR, Chroma Technology, Brattleboro, VT). A microchannel plate intensifier (VS4-1845, VideoScope, Sterling, VA), and a silicon-intensified target tube camera (Hamamatsu Photonics, Hamamatsu City, Japan) were used in each arm. Bulk fluorimetric detection of FRET from YFP-HRas to BodipyTR-GTP is described in Supporting Text.
Results and Discussion
FRET Strategy for Detecting the Activation of Single Molecules of H-Ras. To visualize the instances of activation of single individual Ras molecules, we observed GTP binding to Ras by using a single-molecule FRET technique (Fig. 1A). First, KB (human epidermoid mouth carcinoma) cells stably expressing YFP-HRas were microinjected with the GTP conjugated with a fluorescent tag, BodipyTR (BodipyTR-GTP) (21, 22). We then stimulated these cells with 20 nM EGF, which should lead to the release of prebound GDP from Ras and the binding of BodipyTR-GTP to the Ras molecule. This binding may induce FRET from the YFP on Ras to the BodipyTR conjugated to GTP; that is, when YFP is excited with a 488-nm line from an argon ion laser, the sensitized emission of BodipyTR, because of energy transfer from YFP, may be observed. Thus Ras activation, i.e., GTP binding, may be detected as the appearance of a sensitized emission spot of BodipyTR-GTP at the place superimposable with the YFP-H-Ras spot, which would be dimmed on the appearance of the BodipyTR spot.
In Vitro FRET Observations. This in vivo single-molecule experimental design was first tested in vitro by using bulk spectrofluorimetry. YFP-H-Ras (donor) expressed in Escherichia coli was purified and mixed with various concentrations of BodipyTRGTP (acceptor), and the occurrence of FRET was examined (Fig. 1B). With an increase in the BodipyTR-GTP concentration, the sensitized emission of BodipyTR due to FRET from YFP increased, indicating that FRET is a sensitive way to detect BodipyTR-GTP binding to YFP-H-Ras. This result also suggests that H-Ras could be activated even after YFP fusion. This finding was further confirmed by a pull-down assay, with use of the Ras-binding domain of Raf-1 kinase. The YFP-H-Ras activation after EGF stimulation took place in a time course very similar to that of endogenous Ras, suggesting that the fusion protein is activated in living KB cells.
Observation of Single YFP-H-Ras Molecules on the Plasma Membrane. Single fluorescent molecules were observed by an objective lens-type total internal reflection fluorescence microscope at video rate (33-ms resolution) (20). Both YFP and BodipyTR were observed simultaneously, with two video cameras working synchronously on the two observation arms of the fluorescence microscope (at video rate, 33 ms/frame). YFP-H-Ras expressed in KB cells (Fig. 2A Left) exhibited a fluorescence intensity distribution with two peaks (Fig. 2B); 75% of the spots exhibited the distribution similar to single molecules of purified YFP (YFP was expressed in E. coli and then purified) nonspecifically adsorbed on the coverslip, whereas the remaining 25% of the YFP-H-Ras spots had higher intensities. The latter spots may represent YFP-H-Ras in clusters, microdomains (8), or an incidental proximity. The majority of the YFP-H-Ras spots with single YFP intensities were photobleached in a single step (Fig. 2C).
Visualizing the Activation of Single Molecules of H-Ras in Living Cells. The occurrence of FRET from YFP-H-Ras to BodipyTR-GTP in live cells was examined by exciting YFP by using a 488-nm laser line (Fig. 2 A). Within ≈30 s after stimulation with 20 nM EGF, BodipyTR-GTP spots undergoing sensitized emission started appearing on the plasma membrane, exactly at the places where the YFP-H-Ras spots had been observed, and they remained superimposable as long as the BodipyTR signal was visible (Fig. 2 A and D; see Movie 1, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). Fig. 2E shows the time-dependent changes in the fluorescence intensities of the YFPH-Ras (energy donor) spot and the BodipyTR-GTP (acceptor) spot excited by FRET from YFP-H-Ras (the images shown in Fig. 2D). In the time code shown in Fig. 2 D and E, at 0.6 s, a BodipyTR-GTP spot started appearing at the place superimposable with the preexisting YFP-H-Ras spot, and, as the YFP-H-Ras spot dimmed, the sensitized fluorescence spot of BodipyTR-GTP became brighter. At ≈0.9 s, the BodipyTRGTP molecule was photobleached or released from the YFPH-Ras with the concomitant recovery of the fluorescent intensity of the YFP-H-Ras donor molecule, until it also was photobleached at ≈1.3 s (for another type of sequence of event, see Fig. 8, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). The single-molecule FRET results for YFP-K-Ras were very similar to those for YFP-H-Ras.
Time-Dependent Changes in the Number of Activated Ras Molecules. The number of YFP-(H or K)-Ras/BodipyTR-GTP molecular pairs undergoing single-molecule FRET begins to increase at 0.5 min after EGF stimulation, peaks at 1.5-3.5 min, and then decreases (Fig. 3, the scale on the left). In general, this time course agrees with the bulk biochemical pull-down assay results by using the Ras-binding domain of Raf-1 kinase (Fig. 3, the scale on the right; also see Fig. 1C), whereas the phosphorylation level of EGF receptor rises and peaks slightly earlier. Basal activation of YFP-Ras before EGF stimulation may reflect the nucleotide exchange occurring at the steady state. The dominant negative YFP-H-Ras-N17 molecules (23, 24) expressed in KB cells hardly exhibited FRET, as expected (Fig. 3). Furthermore, FRET was hardly detectable with the constitutively active YFP-H-Ras-V12, probably because the nucleotide exchange on V12-Ras may be very slow because of its impaired GTPase activity (25).
Ras Diffusion Slows on Activation. Fig. 4A shows typical trajectories of YFP-H-Ras on the cell membrane (see Supporting Text for the definition of “typical” trajectories). Before EGF stimulation, a large majority of the H-Ras molecules diffuse rapidly (Fig. 4A Left; see Movie 2, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site) (17, 26), as fast as phospholipids. In contrast, the activated Ras molecules, which could be tracked by following both the donor and the FRET signals, exhibited trajectories indicating that their diffusion is substantially slowed or blocked (Fig. 4 A Center and B; also see Movie 3, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site).
For a quantitative analysis of the mode and the rate of diffusion, we first classified the trajectories into mobile and immobile modes, based on the mean-square displacement of the fluorescent spot for 200 ms (MSD200ms) obtained from a 330-ms trajectory [the spots exhibiting MSD200ms < 0.018 μm2 were classified into the “immobile” mode, which was determined as the 95 percentile point by Gaussian fitting of MSD200ms of YFP nonspecifically adsorbed on the coverslip; see Fig. 5, fifth box (27)], and then for the spots exhibiting MSD200ms over 0.018 μm2 (including all noises, “mobile” mode) (see Fig. 5, fifth box), we evaluated their diffusion coefficients in a time window of 100 ms, D100ms (27). These mobile molecules all undergo (apparent) simple Brownian diffusion in this time window (28), and it is characterized by D100ms.
In the cells at the resting (steady) state before EGF stimulation, the distribution of MSD200ms (Fig. 5, first box) indicates that only ≈9 (16)% of the YFP-H-Ras (K-Ras) molecules are immobile (see Fig. 9. which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, for K-Ras data). Among the mobile YFP-H-Ras molecules, >90% exhibited rapid diffusion similar to that of a non-raft phospholipid DOPE (28). This result suggests that the H-Ras molecules may make only temporary (perhaps <100 ms, which is our time window here) interactions with caveolae or large and stable rafts (4-8), if they interact with these structures at all in the steady-state resting cells. This finding is consistent with the discussion advanced by Prior et al. (7, 8), who argued that the partitioning of Ras molecules into rafts may be very dynamic, with Ras entering and exiting the rafts rapidly. Partial depolymerization of actin filaments by mild latrunculin B treatment did not affect the amount of the immobile fraction of YFP-(H and K)-Ras, as shown in Fig. 5 (first box). However, the D100ms for the mobile component was either increased (H-Ras) or decreased (K-Ras). The interpretation of these results is complicated, as described in Supporting Text (higher affinity of K-Ras to actin and actin aggregates).
Activated H- and K-Ras molecules undergoing FRET after EGF application exhibited substantial slowing/immobilization (Fig. 5, second boxes). About half of the activated Ras molecules (observed between 1 and 3 min after EGF stimulation) became immobilized. The remaining half of activated Ras molecules were classified into the mobile mode, but their diffusion rates were decreased by a factor of 3 to 4 from those before EGF application (Fig. 5, compare the first and second boxes on the right).
Partial depolymerization of actin filaments by latrunculin B treatment substantially inhibited the activation-induced immobilization (MSD200ms) and slowing of YFP-H-Ras (D100ms), as shown in Fig. 4A Right and Fig. 5 (second boxes), suggesting the involvement of filamentous actin in the immobilization of YFPH-Ras. However, in the case of YFP-K-Ras, the slowing and immobilization were not blocked by the same latrunculin B treatment. What causes this difference between H- and K-Ras is unknown. (Our hypothesis to explain the results with K-Ras is that K-Ras has a tendency to transiently associates with actin and/or actin aggregates. See Supporting Text.). It is possible that K-Ras molecules tend to be trapped in the microaggregates of actin after latrunculin B treatment (29). Actin depolymerization under the conditions used here did not affect Ras activation, as observed by a pull-down assay with the Ras-binding domain of Raf-1 (data not shown). Cholesterol depletion with MβCD did not block the immobilization of either YFP-(H or K)-Ras (Fig. 5, third boxes), suggesting that the cholesterol-enriched raft domains (30) may not be involved in slowing the diffusion of activated H- and K-Ras.
Under the FRET observation conditions, the lifetime (t1/e) of YFP due to photobleaching was ≈1 s, and, therefore, the majority of YFP-H-Ras that exhibited FRET (activation) and immobilization became photobleached during the FRET period (Fig. 4B). Therefore, these results cannot predict what may happen several seconds after the FRET (Ras activation) was initiated. However, because the constitutively active V12Ras molecules (both H and K) exhibited alternating immobile (≈20%) and mobile (≈80%) periods, each lasting mostly 1 s or less (data not shown), we expect that the immobilized (activated, wild-type) Ras molecules would soon resume rapid diffusion. This expectation is consistent with the report by Niv et al. (17), who found that the diffusion coefficient for the constitutively active V12Ras was only slightly reduced from that for the wild-type Ras, for observation periods typically >10 s (fluorescence recovery after photobleaching experiments).
A Model for the Formation of the Active Ras Signal-Transduction Complex. Based on these observations, we propose a model in which activated Ras molecules may be bound by activated Ras-specific scaffolding proteins, like SUR-8 (9), spred (10), and galectin-1 (8), which might initiate the cooperative formation of transient signaling complexes including the effector molecules, like Raf-1, and deactivating proteins for Ras, like RasGAP (Fig. 6A). The formation of such a large signaling complex on the plasma membrane would induce its trapping in and/or binding to the actin-based membrane skeleton mesh, as proposed (20, 28, 31); binding enhanced by the avidity effect of molecular complexes, and corralling enhanced by the increased size on the formation of molecular complexes. [The “fence” effect of the membrane skeleton on the cytoplasmic proteins (31) and the “picket” effect of various transmembrane proteins anchored to the membrane skeleton on the lipid part of Ras (28) would contribute to corralling.]
Recruitment of GAP334, the Ras-Binding, Catalytic Domain of p120RasGAP, on the Cell Membrane. To test the model for the formation of the transient signaling complex of activated Ras and the subsequent confinement within and/or binding to the membrane-skeleton mesh, the recruitment and movement of GAP334 [the catalytic domain of p120RasGAP that binds to activated Ras (see Supporting Text)] on the plasma membrane was examined. GAP334, which is normally in the cytoplasm, binds to activated Ras on the plasma membrane and greatly accelerates the hydrolysis of the GTP molecule bound to Ras for its deactivation. As expected, individual GAP334-GFP molecules suddenly appear on the membrane from the cytoplasm after EGF stimulation (Fig. 6B and see Movie 4, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site). The number of GAP334-GFP molecules recruited to the cell membrane increases 0.5-2 min after EGF stimulation (Fig. 6C). The recruitment of GAP334-GFP was also detectable before EGF stimulation, probably because of the existence of Ras-GTP (activated Ras) even at the steady state (Figs. 1D and 3; note that these GAP334-GFP molecules are also immobile, consistent with the binding to activated Ras present before EGF stimulation). Representative trajectories of GAP334-GFP on the membrane (Fig. 4C and Movie 4) and a quantitative analysis (Fig. 5, the fourth boxes) indicated that the majority of GAP334-GFP recruited to the plasma membrane is rather stationary, consistent with activated Ras being corralled or bound by the membrane skeleton mesh. Latrunculin treatment mobilized GAP334-GFP without affecting the recruitment of GAP334-GFP to the cell membrane. These results are consistent with the model in which the activated, Ras-induced signaling complex is confined in and/or bound to the membrane-skeleton mesh.
Overexpression of H-Ras (≈4-fold more than endogenous Ras) increased the number of recruited GAP334-GFP molecules to the plasma membrane by a factor of ≈4 (Fig. 6C), and the majority of the recruited GAP334-GFP molecules were stationary (Fig. 6 D and E). These results indicate that Ras is indeed responsible for the immobilization of RasGAP on the plasma membrane.
In summary, we succeeded in observing the activation of single Ras molecules by using single-molecule FRET and found that the activated Ras molecules (perhaps temporarily) become immobile in the plasma membrane. Such immobilization may be induced by the formation of a signaling complex, including activated Ras. RasGAP may further be recruited to this complex, thus deactivating the activated Ras and leading to the disintegration of the complex. Furthermore, such a complex might include more than one Ras molecule (3).
The single-molecule FRET method to detect the binding of BodipyTR-GTP to a G protein fused with YFP in real time is a useful technique to study the activation and dynamics of activated G proteins, and it can be applied to many other G proteins.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgments
We thank the members of the Kusumi laboratory for their helpful discussions.
This paper was submitted directly (Track II) to the PNAS office.
Abbreviationas: FRET, fluorescence resonance energy transfer; MSD200ms, mean-square displacement of the fluorescent spot for 200 ms; EGF, epidermal growth factor.
References
- 1.Satoh, T., Nakafuku, M. & Kaziro, Y. (1992) J. Biol. Chem. 267, 24149-24152. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rebollo, A. & Martinez, A. C. (1999) Blood 94, 2971-2980. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Inouye, K., Mizutani, S., Koide, H. & Kaziro, Y. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 3737-3740. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mineo, C., James, G. L., Smart, E. J. & Anderson, R. G. (1996) J. Biol. Chem. 271, 11930-11935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Wu, C., Butz, S., Ying, Y. & Anderson, R. G. (1997) J. Biol. Chem. 272, 3554-3559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Roy, S., Luetterforst, R., Harding, A., Apolloni, A., Etheridge, M., Stang, E., Rolls, B., Hancock, J. F. & Parton, R. G. (1999) Nat. Cell Biol. 1, 98-105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Prior, I. A., Harding, A., Yan, J., Sluimer, J., Parton, R. G. & Hancock, J. F. (2001) Nat. Cell Biol. 3, 368-375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Prior, I. A., Muncke, C., Parton, R. G. & Hancock, J. F. (2003) J. Cell Biol. 160, 165-170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Li, W., Han, M. & Guan, K. L. (2000) Genes Dev. 14, 895-900. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wakioka, T., Sasaki, A., Kato, R., Shouda, T., Matsumoto, A., Miyoshi, K., Tsuneoka, M., Komiya, S., Baron, R. & Yoshimura, A. (2001) Nature 412, 647-651. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Matheny, S. A., Chen, C., Kortum, R. L., Razidlo, G. L., Lewis, R. E. & White, M. A. (2004) Nature 427, 256-260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tzivion, G., Luo, Z. & Avruch, J. (1998) Nature 394, 88-92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ha, T., Enderle, T., Ogletree, D. F., Chemla, D. S., Selvin, P. R. & Weiss, S. (1996) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 6264-6268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sako, Y., Minoghchi, S. & Yanagida, T. (2000) Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 168-172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Deniz, A. A., Laurence, T. A., Dahan, M., Chemla, D. S., Schultz, P. G. & Weiss, S. (2001) Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 52, 233-253. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mochizuki, N., Yamashita, S., Kurokawa, K., Ohba, Y., Nagai, T., Miyawaki, A. & Matsuda, M. (2001) Nature 411, 1065-1068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Niv, H., Gutman, O., Kloog, Y. & Henis, Y. I. (2002) J. Cell Biol. 157, 865-872. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.de Rooij, J. & Bos, J. L. (1997) Oncogene 14, 623-625. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Riese, D. J., II, Bermingham, Y., van Raaij, T. M., Buckley, S., Plowman, G. D. & Stern, D. F. (1996) Oncogene 12, 345-353. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Iino, R., Koyama, I. & Kusumi, A. (2001) Biophys. J. 80, 2667-2677. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Draganescu, A., Hodawadekar, S. C., Gee, K. R. & Brenner, C. (2000) J. Biol. Chem. 275, 4555-4560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.McEwen, D., Gee, K., Kang, H. & Neubig, R. (2001) Anal. Biochem. 291, 109-117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.John, J., Rensland, H., Schlichting, I., Vetter, I., Borasio, G. D., Goody, R. S. & Wittinghofer, A. (1993) J. Biol. Chem. 268, 923-929. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Feig, L. A. & Cooper, G. M. (1988) Mol. Cell. Biol. 8, 3235-3243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.John, J., Frech, M. & Wittinghofer, A. (1988) J. Biol. Chem. 263, 11792-11799. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Niv, H., Gutman, O., Henis, Y. I. & Kloog, Y. (1999) J. Biol. Chem. 274, 1606-1613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Nakada, C., Ritchie, K., Oba, Y., Nakamura, M., Hotta, Y., Iino, R., Kasai, R., Yamaguchi, K., Fujiwara, T. & Kusumi, A. (2003) Nat. Cell Biol. 5, 626-632. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Fujiwara, T., Ritchie, K., Murakoshi, H., Jacobson, K. & Kusumi, A. (2002) J. Cell Biol. 157, 1071-1081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Sako, Y. & Kusumi, A. (1994) J. Cell Biol. 125, 1251-1264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Simons, K. & Ikonen, E. (1997) Nature 387, 569-572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kusumi, A. & Sako, Y. (1996) Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 8, 566-574. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Ormo, M., Cubitt, A. B., Kallio, K., Gross, L. A., Tsien, R. Y. & Remington, S. J. (1996) Science 273, 1392-1395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Krengel, U., Schlichting, L., Scherer, A., Schumann, R., Frech, M., John, J., Kabsch, W., Pai, E. F. & Wittinghofer, A. (1990) Cell 62, 539-548. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Gamberucci, A., Innocenti, B., Fulceri, R., Banhegyi, G., Giunti, R., Pozzan, T. & Benedetti, A. (1994) J. Biol. Chem. 269, 23597-23602. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.