goa-1 (Gao) modulates many behaviors in C. elegans, including locomotion, egg-laying, and feeding. Reducing function in
goa-1 causes hyperactive locomotion and constitutive egg laying (1, 2); in contrast, overexpressing the constitutively activated Q205L mutation causes lethargy and cessation of egg laying (1). Previously, we screened for suppressors of the paralysis of syIs17, an integrated transgene containing
goa-1(Q205L) under control of a heat shock promoter. Hyperactive mutants were isolated in two genes,
eat-16 and
sag-1/dgk-1. We found that in addition to suppressing the phenotype of activated Gao,
eat-16 and
sag-1/dgk-1 mutations also partially suppressed the phenotype of several reduction of function mutations in
egl-30 ( C. elegans Gaq).
eat-16 encodes a regulator of G protein signaling, which we believe functions as a GAP for EGL-30, and
sag-1/dgk-1 encodes a diacyl glycerol kinase (3) which likely functions to reduce the levels of diacyl glycerol (DAG), a second messenger produced upon stimulation of PLCb by activated EGL-30.
eat-16(
sy438) and
sag-1/dgk-1
(sy428) double mutants arrest during larval development. This lethal phenotype is highly penetrant (>99%). We hypothesized that the lethality of
eat-16;
sag-1/dgk-1 is caused by excessive levels of second messengers produced downstream of Gaq, such as DAG. In support of this hypothesis, the triple mutant
egl-30(
md186)
eat-16(
sy438);
sag-1/dgk-1
(sy428) is viable to adulthood and fertile. To further understand the cause of death and identify more components in the pathway, we are seeking other suppressors of
eat-16; sag/dgk-1 lethality besides
egl-30, both by testing mutations in genes that have already been described, and by screening for new suppressors. To date we have screened about 7000 genomes and have backcrossed 7 suppressor mutants. We are beginning to characterize the lethal phenotype by Nomarski optics and plan to determine the site of action. References: Mendel et al., 1995. Science 267: 1652-1655. Segalat et al., 1995. Science 267: 1648-1651. Nurrish et al., 1999. Neuron 24: 231-242