Gβγ engages PLCβ3 at multiple sites to reorient and facilitate its activation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Fisher et al describes the molecular mechanism underlying how G beta gamma subunits engage with the beta 3 isoform of PLC. The paper used a combination of cryo EM, BRET assays, and biochemical assays of PLC beta activity. A key discovery is that G beta gamma is not sufficient to drive membrane binding by itself, and instead promotes G alpha activation. The work is important, but suffers slightly from some ambiguity in the actual interface that is present in their cryo EM model, as crosslinkers could stabilise a transient and non-native complex. This is somewhat abrogated by the careful mutational analysis, which shows that mutation of any of these three sites does somewhat block PLC beta G beta gamma activation. However, there could be some improvement in the presentation of this data, as well as possible mutant selection. Overall, this paper is a nice complement to the Falzone et al paper, showing the membrane-bound complex of PLCB3 on membranes, with this work building on this work, highlighting the importance this will have in our full understanding of PLC beta activation.

Major concerns:

My biggest concern is the potential that this interface is artefactual based on the crosslinking strategy utilised. Here are thoughts on how this could be better validated, presented in a more convincing way.

(1) The authors' main claim is that there is a degree of plasticity of G beta gamma binding to the PLC beta 3 isoform, with three possible binding sites. The main complication of this is, of course, the possibility that the crosslinking stabilises a non-native complex, driven by a mutated cysteine.

Because of this, any other additional details about this interface are going to be critical for the scientific audience to judge if this is accurate.

What would greatly help Figure 1 is an evolutionary conservation analysis of the novel Gbg interface in PLC, to see how well this is conserved, and compare this to the conservation of the previously annotated sites. Conservation of these sites on both the G beta gamma and PLC side would help justify this as a native complex.

This will also help orient the reader to the identity of the mutated residues assayed in Figure 3.

(2) The g beta gamma orientation is also different than what I have observed in previous g beta gamma effector structures. Is there any precedent for this as an effector interface? A supplemental figure comparing this structure to other g beta gamma interfaces from other enzymes, for example recent Tesmer structure with PI3K.

(3) The mutational analysis in Figure 2D-G seems to give some strange results, and I have some question why certain residues were chosen rather than others. Mutation of the Gbg side will be more complicated, as of course that can affect any of the three surfaces. My main question is that, from the way Figure 2A is oriented, the main salt bridge in their novel interface to me looks like R199-D228, with K183 being in the wrong orientation to E226, and D167 being far from any charged residues. Why did the authors not make the corresponding R199 to D or E mutation?

(4) To help the reader's interpretation of Figure 2A, I would recommend a supplemental figure showing the density for interfacial residues, as that also would increase confidence in the interface.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors dissect how Gβγ potentiates PLCβ3 signaling in cells. Using engineered crosslinking to stabilize a Gβγ-PLCβ3 complex, single particle cryo-EM, and cell-based functional assays, they identify and map multiple putative Gβγ interaction surfaces on PLCβ3, including a previously unrecognized binding mode. Structure-guided mutagenesis supports the functional relevance of these interactions and suggests that Gβγ potentiation is not primarily mediated by PLCβ3 membrane recruitment, but instead enhances PLCβ3 activity after the lipase is already at the membrane.

Previous reconstitution work on the membrane surface (Falzone & MacKinnon, 2023) proposed a recruitment/partitioning-centric model in which Gβγ increases PLCβ3 output largely by elevating its membrane surface concentration, whereas Gαq primarily increases catalytic turnover; under those reconstitution conditions, the two inputs can combine approximately multiplicatively. In receptor-driven cellular signaling, however, PLCβ3 is robustly recruited to the plasma membrane upon Gαq activation, which raises the question of whether Gβγ contributes mainly through additional recruitment or through a post-recruitment mechanism once PLCβ3 is already at the membrane.

This manuscript helps address that gap by using membrane-anchored PLCβ3 and complementary cellular readouts to separate "getting PLCβ3 to the membrane" from "boosting activity once PLCβ3 is already there." Their results argue that, in cells, membrane recruitment is largely dominated by Gαq·GTP, while Gβγ can further potentiate PIP2 hydrolysis after membrane association, consistent with a modulatory role at the membrane rather than primary recruitment.

Overall, the work provides a structural and mechanistic framework for Gβγ-PLCβ3 cooperation and helps clarify the basis of Gq pathway amplification. The manuscript is generally strong, but some issues need to be addressed.

Major comments:

(1) BMOE/BM(PEG)2 crosslinking may enforce a non-native docking geometry, potentially compromising the physiological relevance and precision of the Gβγ-PLCβ3 interface as described. Although a >50% 1:1 crosslinked complex is formed and remains active, the solution maps show lower local resolution for Gβγ, consistent with a dynamic, potentially heterogeneous, interface. One interface is captured via a single engineered cysteine pair (PLCβ3 E60C-Gβ C271), which could potentially bias the pose. It would be helpful if the authors could provide additional orthogonal support (e.g., alternative crosslinked sites) and bolster the clarification of its uniqueness and relevance.

(2) In the crosslinked structure, the authors report that GβD228 interacts with PLCβ3 R199 and K183. In Figure 2A, R199 appears closer to Gβ D228 than K183, yet only K183 is functionally tested. Testing R199 (e.g., R199E/R199A) would strengthen the structure-guided validation of this interface.

(3) The mutagenesis strategy appears inconsistent across figures/assays, which makes it difficult to interpret phenotypes and directly link the functional data to the proposed interfaces. For example, in Figure 2E, we see R185L but R215E, while residue L40 is mutated to Gly in the IP accumulation assays but to Glu/Lys (L40E/K) in the BRET assays (Figures 3B/3D/3F). The authors should (i) clearly justify the rationale for each substitution (conservative vs charge-reversal, interface disruption, etc.) and (ii), where possible, test the same mutants across assays (or provide evidence that alternative substitutions yield consistent conclusions).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

PLCβ3 is activated by both Gαq and Gβγ subunits. This paper follows previous solutions and cryoEM studies of PLCβ3 / Gβγ, trying to understand the molecular details of activation using cellular BRET assays and cryoEM.

Strengths:

The authors find evidence for multiple binding sites on PLCβ3 for Gβγ and suggest that Gβγ is not bone fide activator per se but enhances Gαq activation by positioning the catalytic site towards substrate, although this is not completely convincing. Although these sites may not naturally be operative, the authors might want to develop the potential role of these sites.

The authors also find that this activation is not through recruitment of the enzyme to the membrane by Gβγ released upon G protein activation, in accord with other PLCβ enzymes, but not for PLCβ3, and again, the authors might want to develop this point further.

Weaknesses:

(1) I'm confused as to why the authors feel that their mechanism is distinct from the two-state enzyme, the synergistic activation proposed by Ross in 2011, using a primarily thermodynamic argument. As written, the authors appear to be very reliant on structural and BRET studies that do not give the details that would disprove this interpretation. The main issue is that the author's mechanism does not fully explain how Gβγ activation occurs for PLCβ2 in reconstituted systems in the absence of Gαq subunits.

(2) In a recent study, McKinnon presents a model showing that Gαq and Gβγ activate PLCβ3 by two distinct pathways and that activation by Gβγ occurs through membrane recruitment. It is not surprising that the authors find that this is not true since the pelleting method used by McKinnon is subject to error. The authors should directly address the limitations of this previous work and the changes in proteoliposomes with sedimentation that alter partition coefficients. Although the inability of Gβγ to drive membrane binding is in accord with the quantitative studies of Scarlata, showing that the affinity of PLCβ3 to Gβγ is fairly weak as compared to the intrinsic membrane partition coefficient.

(3) It was proposed many years ago that in signaling complexes Gαq - Gβγ may not have to fully dissociate when binding PLCβ, but rather shift their relative orientation when binding to PLCβ to allow activation. Is their model consistent with this? Is it possible that PLCβ3 keeps Gβγ from diffusing to enhance the rate of Gq / Gβγ re-association?

(4) The authors find that Gβγ binds multiple sites, and it is clear that the PH domain site is the primary one in accord with previous work. Could these weaker sites be an artifact of the elevated concentrations used in cryoEM and BRET assays?

(5) Although their assays infer differences in binding affinities, it would strengthen the paper if the authors could estimate the association energies of these different binding sites. This estimation would also address the concern stated above.

Author Response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Fisher et al describes the molecular mechanism underlying how G beta gamma subunits engage with the beta 3 isoform of PLC. The paper used a combination of cryo EM, BRET assays, and biochemical assays of PLC beta activity. A key discovery is that G beta gamma is not sufficient to drive membrane binding by itself, and instead promotes G alpha activation. The work is important, but suffers slightly from some ambiguity in the actual interface that is present in their cryo EM model, as crosslinkers could stabilise a transient and non-native complex. This is somewhat abrogated by the careful mutational analysis, which shows that mutation of any of these three sites does somewhat block PLC beta G beta gamma activation. However, there could be some improvement in the presentation of this data, as well as possible mutant selection. Overall, this paper is a nice complement to the Falzone et al paper, showing the membrane-bound complex of PLCB3 on membranes, with this work building on this work, highlighting the importance this will have in our full understanding of PLC beta activation.

Thank you for the positive feedback.

Major concerns:

My biggest concern is the potential that this interface is artefactual based on the crosslinking strategy utilised. Here are thoughts on how this could be better validated, presented in a more convincing way.

(1) The authors' main claim is that there is a degree of plasticity of G beta gamma binding to the PLC beta 3 isoform, with three possible binding sites. The main complication of this is, of course, the possibility that the crosslinking stabilises a non-native complex, driven by a mutated cysteine.

Because of this, any other additional details about this interface are going to be critical for the scientific audience to judge if this is accurate.

What would greatly help Figure 1 is an evolutionary conservation analysis of the novel Gbg interface in PLC, to see how well this is conserved, and compare this to the conservation of the previously annotated sites. Conservation of these sites on both the G beta gamma and PLC side would help justify this as a native complex.

This will also help orient the reader to the identity of the mutated residues assayed in Figure 3.

We agree that crosslinking can result in the capture a non-physiologically relevant interface. However, we do not observe any crosslinking between Gbg and a PLCb3 variant that retains a cysteine in the disordered region of the X–Y linker, nor crosslinking between PLCb3 and any other cysteine present in the Gbg heterodimer. The evolutionary conservation analysis is a great suggestion and will included in the revision for both Gbg and PLCb.

(2) The g beta gamma orientation is also different than what I have observed in previous g beta gamma effector structures. Is there any precedent for this as an effector interface? A supplemental figure comparing this structure to other g beta gamma interfaces from other enzymes, for example recent Tesmer structure with PI3K.

Yes, this is not the more typically observed Gbg–effector interaction, which is mediated by the narrow face of the Gbgtoroid. We are not aware of other structures in which Gbg interacts with a binding partner in the same way. A supplemental figure comparing this Gbg–PLCb interaction to the Gbg–PI3K and Gbg–GRK2 structures will be included in the revision.

(3) The mutational analysis in Figure 2D-G seems to give some strange results, and I have some question why certain residues were chosen rather than others. Mutation of the Gbg side will be more complicated, as of course that can affect any of the three surfaces. My main question is that, from the way Figure 2A is oriented, the main salt bridge in their novel interface to me looks like R199-D228, with K183 being in the wrong orientation to E226, and D167 being far from any charged residues. Why did the authors not make the corresponding R199 to D or E mutation?

Thank you for pointing this out. We are in the process of testing the PLCb3 R199E mutant in our assays and will include the results in the revised manuscript.

(4) To help the reader's interpretation of Figure 2A, I would recommend a supplemental figure showing the density for interfacial residues, as that also would increase confidence in the interface.

Thank you for the suggestion, this will be included in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors dissect how Gβγ potentiates PLCβ3 signaling in cells. Using engineered crosslinking to stabilize a Gβγ-PLCβ3 complex, single particle cryo-EM, and cell-based functional assays, they identify and map multiple putative Gβγ interaction surfaces on PLCβ3, including a previously unrecognized binding mode. Structure-guided mutagenesis supports the functional relevance of these interactions and suggests that Gβγ potentiation is not primarily mediated by PLCβ3 membrane recruitment, but instead enhances PLCβ3 activity after the lipase is already at the membrane.

Previous reconstitution work on the membrane surface (Falzone & MacKinnon, 2023) proposed a recruitment/partitioning-centric model in which Gβγ increases PLCβ3 output largely by elevating its membrane surface concentration, whereas Gαq primarily increases catalytic turnover; under those reconstitution conditions, the two inputs can combine approximately multiplicatively. In receptor-driven cellular signaling, however, PLCβ3 is robustly recruited to the plasma membrane upon Gαq activation, which raises the question of whether Gβγ contributes mainly through additional recruitment or through a post-recruitment mechanism once PLCβ3 is already at the membrane.

This manuscript helps address that gap by using membrane-anchored PLCβ3 and complementary cellular readouts to separate "getting PLCβ3 to the membrane" from "boosting activity once PLCβ3 is already there." Their results argue that, in cells, membrane recruitment is largely dominated by Gαq·GTP, while Gβγ can further potentiate PIP2 hydrolysis after membrane association, consistent with a modulatory role at the membrane rather than primary recruitment.

Overall, the work provides a structural and mechanistic framework for Gβγ-PLCβ3 cooperation and helps clarify the basis of Gq pathway amplification. The manuscript is generally strong, but some issues need to be addressed.

Thank you for the positive comments.

Major comments:

(1) BMOE/BM(PEG)2 crosslinking may enforce a non-native docking geometry, potentially compromising the physiological relevance and precision of the Gβγ-PLCβ3 interface as described. Although a >50% 1:1 crosslinked complex is formed and remains active, the solution maps show lower local resolution for Gβγ, consistent with a dynamic, potentially heterogeneous, interface. One interface is captured via a single engineered cysteine pair (PLCβ3 E60C-Gβ C271), which could potentially bias the pose. It would be helpful if the authors could provide additional orthogonal support (e.g., alternative crosslinked sites) and bolster the clarification of its uniqueness and relevance.

We did attempt to isolate other crosslinked complexes. PLCb3-D892 self-crosslinked under all reaction conditions, while PLCb3-D892 XY_Cys , which retains an endogenous cysteine within the X–Y linker (C516), did not result in any crosslinked product when incubated with Gbg. Only the PLCb3-D892 E60C crosslinked to Gbg as confirmed by SDS-PAGE and SEC. All experiments also used wild-type Gb which contains two solvent-exposed cysteines in the effector binding site (C204 and C271). The greatest number of particles correspond to crosslinking between Gb C271 and E60C in PLCb3-D892. Crosslinking between PLCb3-D892 E60C and other residues in Gbg is possible, but there are not sufficient particle numbers corresponding to these species for 2D classing and reconstruction. These observations, together with the high efficiency of crosslinking, are consistent with a stable and persistent interaction.

(2) In the crosslinked structure, the authors report that GβD228 interacts with PLCβ3 R199 and K183. In Figure 2A, R199 appears closer to Gβ D228 than K183, yet only K183 is functionally tested. Testing R199 (e.g., R199E/R199A) would strengthen the structure-guided validation of this interface.

We agree, and functional analysis of PLCb3 R199E will be included in the revision.

(3) The mutagenesis strategy appears inconsistent across figures/assays, which makes it difficult to interpret phenotypes and directly link the functional data to the proposed interfaces. For example, in Figure 2E, we see R185L but R215E, while residue L40 is mutated to Gly in the IP accumulation assays but to Glu/Lys (L40E/K) in the BRET assays (Figures 3B/3D/3F). The authors should (i) clearly justify the rationale for each substitution (conservative vs charge-reversal, interface disruption, etc.) and (ii), where possible, test the same mutants across assays (or provide evidence that alternative substitutions yield consistent conclusions).

The mutagenesis experiments were initially carried out independently in the Lambert and Lyon groups. As the study progressed, additional mutations were designed based on prior results. The L40G mutation is one such example. Given its modest impact on activity in the IP accumulation assay, the L40E and L40K mutants designed to maximally disrupt the interface in the BRET experiments. The revision will include the rationale behind different substitutions and discussion of any potential differences.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

PLCβ3 is activated by both Gαq and Gβγ subunits. This paper follows previous solutions and cryoEM studies of PLCβ3 / Gβγ, trying to understand the molecular details of activation using cellular BRET assays and cryoEM.

Strengths:

The authors find evidence for multiple binding sites on PLCβ3 for Gβγ and suggest that Gβγ is not bone fide activator per se but enhances Gαq activation by positioning the catalytic site towards substrate, although this is not completely convincing. Although these sites may not naturally be operative, the authors might want to develop the potential role of these sites.

The authors also find that this activation is not through recruitment of the enzyme to the membrane by Gβγ released upon G protein activation, in accord with other PLCβ enzymes, but not for PLCβ3, and again, the authors might want to develop this point further.

Thank you for the suggestions.

Weaknesses:

(1) I'm confused as to why the authors feel that their mechanism is distinct from the two-state enzyme, the synergistic activation proposed by Ross in 2011, using a primarily thermodynamic argument. As written, the authors appear to be very reliant on structural and BRET studies that do not give the details that would disprove this interpretation. The main issue is that the author's mechanism does not fully explain how Gβγ activation occurs for PLCβ2 in reconstituted systems in the absence of Gαq subunits.

The reconstitution experiments rely on nM-mM concentrations of purified proteins and liposomes that contain up to 30% PI (4,5)2. PLCb2 and PLCb3 show dose-dependent increases in activity with increasing concentrations of Gbg. PLCb enzymes that interact with the liposomes would encounter liposome-tethered Gbg subunits, which would in turn bind the lipase, tethering to the membrane and helping position the active site for catalysis. While there is not yet experimental evidence that Gbg binding can displace the Ha2’ helix, it could facilitate interfacial activation given the net negative charge of PI (4,5) P2. In addition, PLCb2 is fundamentally different from the other PLCb isoforms in its sensitivity to heterotrimeric G proteins. Given its decreased sensitivity to Ga_q and increased basal activity, it is possible that autoinhibition by the proximal CTD is weaker. PLCb2 is also abundantly expressed in neutrophils, along with more Gi-coupled receptors. Thus, it is possible that Gbg directly activates PLCb2 in these cells, but future experiments are required to definitively answer this question.

(2) In a recent study, McKinnon presents a model showing that Gαq and Gβγ activate PLCβ3 by two distinct pathways and that activation by Gβγ occurs through membrane recruitment. It is not surprising that the authors find that this is not true since the pelleting method used by McKinnon is subject to error. The authors should directly address the limitations of this previous work and the changes in proteoliposomes with sedimentation that alter partition coefficients. Although the inability of Gβγ to drive membrane binding is in accord with the quantitative studies of Scarlata, showing that the affinity of PLCβ3 to Gβγ is fairly weak as compared to the intrinsic membrane partition coefficient.

Thank you for raising this point. The changes in composition, size, and structure when pelleting proteoliposomes may complicate data interpretation and will be discussed in the revision.

(3) It was proposed many years ago that in signaling complexes Gαq - Gβγ may not have to fully dissociate when binding PLCβ, but rather shift their relative orientation when binding to PLCβ to allow activation. Is their model consistent with this? Is it possible that PLCβ3 keeps Gβγ from diffusing to enhance the rate of Gq / Gβγ re-association?

The crosslinked complex is compatible with simultaneous binding of a Gbg –Gbg heterotrimer to the PLCb3 without disrupting the observed interface. It is possible that Gbg could interact with Gbg bound to the PH domain or the EF hands in the previously reported reconstruction. If so, the interaction would be mediated by the N-terminal helix of Gbg. Alternatively, the intrinsic GAP activity of PLCb3 may also prevent Gbg from diffusing to promote heterotrimer reassociation.

(4) The authors find that Gβγ binds multiple sites, and it is clear that the PH domain site is the primary one in accord with previous work. Could these weaker sites be an artifact of the elevated concentrations used in cryoEM and BRET assays?

Assuming the PH domain is the primary Gbg binding site, it is possible that the secondary EF hand site observed by Falzone and Mackinnon reflects high protein concentrations. However, it seems unlikely that we would reach these concentrations within cells. Our functional data is also consistent with the Gbg binding site in the EF hands playing a functional role in increasing PLCb activity.

(5) Although their assays infer differences in binding affinities, it would strengthen the paper if the authors could estimate the association energies of these different binding sites. This estimation would also address the concern stated above.

We appreciate this suggestion and will keep it in mind as we complete the revision.