Preventing mouth injuries during sports

In the presence of MgATP or MgADP the E. coli chaperonin proteins, GroEL and GroES, form a stable asymmetric complex with a stoichiometry of two GroEL7:one GroES7: seven MgADP. The distribution of the ligands between the two heptameric GroEL rings is crucial to our understanding of the mechanism of chaperonin-assisted folding, being either cis (i.e. [GroEL7.MgADP7.GroES7]-[GroEL7]) or trans (i.e. [GroEL7.MgADP7]-[GroEL7.GroES7]. On the basis of cross-linking experiments with 8-azido-ATP and the heterobifunctional reagent, N-succinimidyl 3-(2-pyridyldithio) propionate (SPDP), it was suggested that GroES and MgADP are bound to the same GroEL ring which resists proteinase K digestion [Nature 366 (1993) 228-233]. However, we find that the SPDP-promoted cross linking of GroES and GroEL occurs in the absence of Mg2+, ADP or ATP, which are required for the formation of the asymmetric complex. Cross-linking is shown to occur only when the SPDP-modified GroES is co-precipitated with GroEL by trichloracetic acid. Furthermore, there are structural grounds for questioning whether SPDP can crosslink, in a physiologically relevant manner, an amino group of GroES with any of the cysteinyl groups of GroEL.     

Mechanism of chaperonin action: GroES binding and release can drive GroEL-mediated protein folding in the absence of ATP hydrolysis

As a basic principle, assisted protein folding by GroEL has been proposed to involve the disruption of misfolded protein structures through ATP hydrolysis and interaction with the cofactor GroES. Here, we describe chaperonin subreactions that prompt a re-examination of this view. We find that GroEL-bound substrate polypeptide can induce GroES cycling on and off GroEL in the presence of ADP. This mechanism promotes efficient folding of the model protein rhodanese, although at a slower rate than in the presence of ATP. Folding occurs when GroES displaces the bound protein into the sequestered volume of the GroEL cavity. Resulting native protein leaves GroEL upon GroES release. A single-ring variant of GroEL is also fully functional in supporting this reaction cycle. We conclude that neither the energy of ATP hydrolysis nor the allosteric coupling of the two GroEL rings is directly required for GroEL/GroES-mediated protein folding. The minimal mechanism of the reaction is the binding and release of GroES to a polypeptide-containing ring of GroEL, thereby closing and opening the GroEL folding cage. The role of ATP hydrolysis is mainly to induce conformational changes in GroEL that result in GroES cycling at a physiologically relevant rate.     

Minimal and optimal mechanisms for GroE-mediated protein folding

We have analyzed the effects of different components of the GroE chaperonin system on protein folding by using a nonpermissive substrate (i.e., one that has very low spontaneous refolding yield) for which rate data can be acquired. In the absence of GroES and nucleotides, the rate of GroEL-mediated refolding of heat- and DTT-denatured mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase was extremely low, but some three times higher than the spontaneous rate. This GroEL-mediated rate was increased 17-fold by saturating concentrations of ATP, 11-fold by ADP and GroES, and 465-fold by ATP and GroES. Optimal refolding activity was observed when the dissociation of GroES from the chaperonin complex was dramatically reduced. Although GroEL minichaperones were able to bind denatured mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase, they were ineffective in enhancing the refolding rate. The spectrum of mechanisms for GroE-mediated protein folding depends on the nature of the substrate. The minimal mechanism for permissive substrates (i.e., having significant yields of spontaneous refolding), requires only binding to the apical domain of GroEL. Slow folding rates of nonpermissive substrates are limited by the transitions between high- and low-affinity states of GroEL alone. The optimal mechanism, which requires holoGroEL, physiological amounts of GroES, and ATP hydrolysis, is necessary for the chaperonin-mediated folding of nonpermissive substrates at physiologically relevant rates under conditions in which retention of bound GroES prevents the premature release of aggregation-prone folding intermediates from the chaperonin complex. The different mechanisms are described in terms of the structural features of mini- and holo-chaperones.     

Asymmetrical interaction of GroEL and GroES in the ATPase cycle of assisted protein folding

The chaperonins GroEL and GroES of Escherichia coli facilitate protein folding in an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent reaction cycle. The kinetic parameters for the formation and dissociation of GroEL-GroES complexes were analyzed by surface plasmon resonance. Association of GroES and subsequent ATP hydrolysis in the interacting GroEL toroid resulted in the formation of a stable GroEL:ADP:GroES complex. The complex dissociated as a result of ATP hydrolysis in the opposite GroEL toroid, without formation of a symmetrical GroEL:(GroES)2 intermediate. Dissociation was accelerated by the addition of unfolded polypeptide. Thus, the functional chaperonin unit is an asymmetrical GroEL:GroES complex, and substrate protein plays an active role in modulating the chaperonin reaction cycle.     

Role of the GroEL chaperonin intermediate domain in coupling ATP hydrolysis to polypeptide release

Modification of the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL with N-ethylmaleimide at residue Cys138 affects the structural and functional integrity of the complex. Nucleotide affinity and ATPase activity of the modified chaperonin are increased, whereas cooperativity of ATP hydrolysis and affinity for GroES are reduced. As a consequence, release and folding of substrate proteins are strongly impaired and uncoupled from ATP hydrolysis in a temperature-dependent manner. Folding of dihydrofolate reductase at 25 degrees C becomes dependent on GroES, whereas folding of typically GroES-dependent proteins is blocked completely. At 37 degrees C, GroES binding is restored to normal levels, and the modified GroEL regains its chaperone activity to some extent. These results assign a central role to the intermediate GroEL domain for transmitting conformational changes between apical and central domains, and for coupling ATP hydrolysis to productive protein release.     

Protein folding: how the mechanism of GroEL action is defined by kinetics

We propose a mechanism for the role of the bacterial chaperonin GroEL in folding proteins. The principal assumptions of the mechanism are (i) that many unfolded proteins bind to GroEL because GroEL preferentially binds small unstructured regions of the substrate protein, (ii) that substrate protein within the cavity of GroEL folds by the same kinetic mechanism and rate processes as in bulk solution, (iii) that stable or transient complexes with GroEL during the folding process are defined by a kinetic partitioning between formation and dissociation of the complex and the rate of folding and unfolding of the protein, and (iv) that dissociation from the complex in early stages of folding may lead to aggregation but dissociation at a late stage leads to correct folding. The experimental conditions for refolding may play a role in defining the function of GroEL in the folding pathway. We propose that the role of GroES and MgATP, either binding or hydrolysis, is to regulate the association and dissociation processes rather than affecting the rate of folding.     

Partitioning of rhodanese onto GroEL. Chaperonin binds a reversibly oxidized form derived from the native protein

The mammalian mitochondrial enzyme, rhodanese, can form stable complexes with the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL if it is either refolded from 8 M urea in the presence of chaperonin or is simply added to the chaperonin as the folded conformer at 37 degreesC. In the presence of GroEL, the kinetic profile of the inactivation of native rhodanese followed a single exponential decay. Initially, the inactivation rates showed a dependence on the chaperonin concentration but reached a constant maximum value as the GroEL concentration increased. Over the same time period, in the absence of GroEL, native rhodanese showed only a small decline in activity. The addition of a non-denaturing concentration of urea accelerated the inactivation and partitioning of rhodanese onto GroEL. These results suggest that the GroEL chaperonin may facilitate protein unfolding indirectly by interacting with intermediates that exist in equilibrium with native rhodanese. The activity of GroEL-bound rhodanese can be completely recovered upon addition of GroES and ATP. The reactivation kinetics and commitment rates for GroEL-rhodanese complexes prepared from either unfolded or native rhodanese were identical. However, when rhodanese was allowed to inactivate spontaneously in the absence of GroEL, no recovery of activity was observed upon addition of GroEL, GroES, and ATP. Interestingly, the partitioning of rhodanese and its subsequent inactivation did not occur when native rhodanese and GroEL were incubated under anaerobic conditions. Thus, our results strongly suggest that the inactive intermediate that partitions onto GroEL is the reversibly oxidized form of rhodanese.     

The chaperonin cycle cannot substitute for prolyl isomerase activity, but GroEL alone promotes productive folding of a cyclophilin-sensitive substrate to a cyclophilin-resistant form

The chaperonin GroEL and the peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase cyclophilin are major representatives of two distinct cellular systems that help proteins to adopt their native three-dimensional structure: molecular chaperones and folding catalysts. Little is known about whether and how these proteins cooperate in protein folding. In this study, we have examined the action of GroEL and cyclophilin on a substrate protein in two distinct prolyl isomerization states. Our results indicate that: (i) GroEL binds the same substrate in different prolyl isomerization states. (ii) GroEL-ES does not promote prolyl isomerizations, but even retards isomerizations. (iii) Cyclophilin cannot promote the correct isomerization of prolyl bonds of a GroEL-bound substrate, but acts sequentially after release of the substrate from GroEL. (iv) A denatured substrate with all-native prolyl bonds is delayed in folding by cyclophilin due to isomerization to non-native prolyl bonds; a substrate that has proceeded in folding beyond a stage where it can be bound by GroEL is still sensitive to cyclophilin. (v) If a denatured cyclophilin-sensitive substrate is first bound to GroEL, however, productive folding to a cyclophilin-resistant form can be promoted, even without GroES. We conclude that GroEL and cyclophilin act sequentially and exert complementary functions in protein folding.     

Native-like structure of a protein-folding intermediate bound to the chaperonin GroEL

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative proteins in its central channel through hydrophobic interactions and initiates productive folding in this space underneath bound co-chaperone, GroES, in the presence of ATP. The questions of where along the folding pathway a protein is recognized by GroEL, and how much structure is present in a bound substrate have remained subjects of discussion, with some experiments suggesting that bound forms are fully unfolded and others suggesting that bound species are partially structured. Here we have studied a substrate protein, human dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR), observing in stopped-flow fluorescence experiments that it can rapidly bind to GroEL at various stages of folding. We have also analyzed the structure of the GroEL-bound protein using hydrogen-deuterium exchange and NMR spectroscopy. The pattern and magnitude of amide proton protection indicate that the central parallel beta-sheet found in native DHFR is present in a moderately stable state in GroEL-bound DHFR. Considering that the strands are derived from distant parts of the primary structure, this suggests that a native-like global topology is also present. We conclude that significant native-like structure is present in protein-folding intermediates bound to GroEL.     

Topology of the morphological domains of the chaperonin GroEL visualized by immuno-electron microscopy

Electron microscopy of the tetradecameric double-ring complex of GroEL reveals a four-layered structure, indicating that the 58 kDa subunits are composed of two major morphological domains. We have used immuno-electron microscopy to assign these domains to the corresponding segments of the GroEL sequence. Upon chemical modification of GroEL with N-ethylmaleimide, protease treatment in the presence of ATP or ADP generates GroEL fragments of 15 kDa (N15; residues 1-141) and 40 kDa (C40; residues 153-531). As visualized by scanning transmission electron microscopy, affinity-purified antibodies directed against C40 recognize the outer layers, whereas antibodies against N15 interact with the equatorial portions of the GroEL double-ring. Thus, the two major domains of the subunits in the chaperonin complex are arranged in the order C40-N15:N15-C40. The single-ring chaperonin co-factor GroES interacts with the C40 domain while the ATP-binding site of GroEL is probably close to the junction between N15 and C40.     

GroEL-mediated folding of structurally homologous dihydrofolate reductases

Using stopped-flow fluorescence techniques, we have examined both the refolding and unfolding reactions of four structurally homologous dihydrofolate reductases (murine DHFR, wild-type E. coli DHFR, and two E. coli DHFR mutants) in the presence and absence of the molecular chaperonin GroEL. We show that GroEL binds the unfolded conformation of each DHFR with second order rate constants greater than 3 x 10(7) M(-1)s(-1) at 22 degrees C. Once bound to GroEL, the proteins refold with rate constants similar to those for folding in the absence of GroEL. The overall rate of formation of native enzyme is decreased by the stability of the complex between GroEL and the last folding intermediate. For wild-type E. coli DHFR, complex formation is transient while for the others, a stable complex is formed. The stable complexes are the same regardless of whether they are formed from the unfolded or folded DHFR. When complex formation is initiated from the native conformation, GroEL binds to a pre-existing non-native conformation, presumably a late folding intermediate, rather than to the native state, thus shifting the conformational equilibrium toward the non-native species by mass action. The model presented here for the interaction of these four proteins with GroEL quantitatively describes the difference between the formation of a transient complex and a stable complex as defined by the rate constants for release and rebinding to GroEL relative to the rate constant for the last folding step. Due to this kinetic partitioning, three different mechanisms can be proposed for the formation of stable complexes between GroEL and either murine DHFR or the two E. coli DHFR mutants. These data show that productive folding of GroEL-bound proteins can occur in the absence of nucleotides or the co-chaperonin GroES and suggest that transient complex formation may be the functional role of GroEL under normal conditions.     

Trigger factor associates with GroEL in vivo and promotes its binding to certain polypeptides

Trigger factor (TF) is a putative molecular chaperone recently found to function together with GroEL in the degradation of the fusion protein, CRAG. TF overproduction enhanced the ability of GroEL to form complexes with CRAG, as well as fetuin or histone. To define further this effect on GroEL binding, affinity columns containing a variety of denatured proteins were used. When cell extracts were applied onto a fetuin column, both TF and GroEL bound but not GroES. Upon ATP addition, TF and GroEL were eluted together and remained tightly associated (even in presence of GroES) in complexes containing one TF per GroEL 14-mer. Overproduction of TF enhanced the capacity of GroEL to bind to many denatured proteins. Moreover, GroEL-TF complexes isolated from such cells showed much greater binding capacity than GroEL from TF-deficient cells. Furthermore, the addition of pure TF to pure GroEL also enhanced markedly its binding capacity. The affinity of GroEL for CRAG also rises during heat shock due to GroEL phosphorylation. TF expression, however, did not promote GroEL phosphorylation. Moreover, heat shock and TF overproduction affected GroEL binding to other denatured polypeptides in distinct ways; only TF promoted binding to certain polypeptides, whereas only phosphorylation increased binding to others. Thus, association with TF and phosphorylation are independent regulators of GroEL function. This enhanced affinity of TF-GroEL complexes for unfolded proteins may also be important in protein folding, because TF has prolyl isomerase activity and associates with nascent polypeptides.     

Identification of amino acid residues at nucleotide-binding sites of chaperonin GroEL/GroES and cpn10 by photoaffinity labeling with 2-azido-adenosine 5'-triphosphate

Although the chaperonin GroEL/GroES complex binds and hydrolyzes ATP, its structure is unlike other known ATPases. In order to better characterize its nucleotide binding sites, we have photolabeled the complex with the affinity analog 2-azido-ATP. Three residues of GroEL, Pro137, Cys138 and Thr468, are labeled by the probe. The location of these residues in the GroEL crystal structure [Braig, K., Otwinowski, Z., Hedge, R., Boisvert, D., Joachimiak, A., Horwich, A. & Sigler, P. (1994) Nature 371, 578-586: Boisvert, D. C., Wang, J., Otwinowski, Z., Horwich, A. L. & Sigler, P. B. (1996) Nat. Struct. Biol. 3, 170-177] suggests that 2-azido-ATP binds to an alternative conformer of GroEL in the presence of GroES. The labeled site appears to be located at the GroEL/GroEL subunit interface since modification of Pro137 and Cys138 is most readily explained by attack of a probe molecule bound to the adjacent GroEL subunit. Labeling of the co-chaperonin, GroES, is clearly demonstrated on gels and the covalent tethering of nucleotide allows detection of a GroES dimer in the presence of SDS. However, no stable peptide derivative of GroES could be purified for sequencing. In contrast, the GroES homolog, yeast cpn10, does give a stable derivative. The modified amino acid is identified as the conserved Pro13, which corresponds to Pro5 in Escherichia coli GroES.     

An arginine residue (Arg101), which is conserved in many GroEL homologues, is required for interactions between the two heptameric rings

Homologous recombination was used to construct a series of hybrid chaperonin genes, containing various lengths of Escherichia coli groEL replaced by the equivalent region from the homologous cpn60-1 gene of Rhizobium leguminosarum. Analysis of proteins produced by these hybrids showed that many of them formed structures with properties consistent with their being single heptameric rings under some conditions, as opposed to the double ring form in which both the GroEL and the Cpn60-1 proteins are found. By determining precise cross-over points, two regions in Cpn60-1 were defined which appeared to be critical for ring-ring interactions. Within one of these regions is a highly conserved arginine residue (Arg101), which we hypothesised to interact with a residue or residues toward the C terminus of the protein, this contact being required for double rings to form. To test this hypothesis, we mutagenised this residue from arginine to threonine in chaperonin genes from two different species of Rhizobium. In both cases, proteins which ran on non-denaturing gels as single rings were produced. Conversion of Arg101 to serine also had the same effect, whereas conversion of Arg101 to lysine did not. Two different single rings created by homologous recombination could be converted back to double rings by changing the threonine, which naturally occurs at this position in E. coli GroEL, back to arginine. The in vivo properties of the proteins were investigated by complementation following deletion of the chromosomal copy of the groEL gene, and by monitoring the ability of cells expressing the hybrid proteins to plate bacteriophage. Most of the hybrid and mutant proteins were functional in these assays, despite their altered properties compared to wild-type GroEL.     

SCL 90-R interpretation and brain tumour: a correction factor?

Two models are being considered for the mechanism of chaperonin-assisted protein folding in E. coli: (i) GroEL/GroES act primarily by enclosing substrate polypeptide in a folding cage in which aggregation is prevented during folding. (ii) GroEL mediates the repetitive unfolding of misfolded polypeptides, returning them onto a productive folding track. Both models are not mutually exclusive, but studies with the polypeptide-binding domain of GroEL have suggested that unfolding is the primary mechanism, enclosure being unnecessary. Here we investigate the capacity of the isolated apical polypeptide-binding domain to functionally replace the complete GroEL/GroES system. We show that the apical domain binds aggregation-sensitive polypeptides but cannot significantly assist their refolding in vitro and fails to replace the groEL gene or to complement defects of groEL mutants in vivo. A single-ring version of GroEL cannot substitute for GroEL. These results strongly support the view that sequestration of aggregation-prone intermediates in a folding cage is an important element of the chaperonin mechanism.     

Binding, encapsulation and ejection: substrate dynamics during a chaperonin-assisted folding reaction

Mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase (mMDH) folds more rapidly in the presence of GroEL, GroES and ATP than it does unassisted. The increase in folding rate as a function of the concentration of GroEL-ES reaches a maximum at a stoichiometry which is approximately equimolar (mMDH subunits:GroEL oligomer) and with an apparent dissociation constant K' for the GroE acceptor state of at least 1 x 10(-8) M. However, even at chaperonin concentrations which are 4000 x K', i.e. at negligible concentrations of free mMDH, the observed folding rate of the substrate remains at its optimum, showing not only that folding occurs in the chaperonin-mMDH complex but also that this rate is uninhibited by any interactions with sites on GroEL. Despite the ability of mMDH to fold on the chaperonin, trapping experiments show that its dwell time on the complex is only 20 seconds. This correlates with both the rate of ATP turnover and the dwell time of GroES on the complex and is only approximately 5% of the time taken for the substrate to commit to the folded state. The results imply that ATP drives the chaperonin complex through a cycle of three functional states: (1) an acceptor complex in which the unfolded substrate is bound tightly; (2) an encapsulation state in which it is sequestered but direct protein-protein contact is lost so that folding can proceed unhindered; and (3) an ejector state which forces dissociation of the substrate whether folded or not.     

Effect of free and ATP-bound magnesium and manganese ions on the ATPase activity of chaperonin GroEL14

Hydrolysis of ATP by the GroEL14 chaperonin oligomer is activated and modulated by Mg2+ or Mn2+ ions. Mg-ATP and Mn-ATP can serve as substrates of the reaction and bind in a positively cooperative manner to the same catalytic sites on GroEL14, with similar binding constants in the micromolar range. In addition, millimolar amounts of Mg2+ and Mn2+ ions can further activate the GroEL14-ATPase while interacting with low-affinity noncatalytic sites on the chaperonin. The extent of ATPase activation by Mn2+ is half of that by Mg2+ ions. When both Mg2+ and Mn2+ ions are present in the same reaction, Mn2+ behaves as a noncompetitive partial inhibitor of the Mg-dependent ATPase. This inhibition requires the presence of ADP in the catalytic site. The binding affinity of Mn-ADP to the site is significantly higher than that of Mg-ADP. A slower release of Mn-ADP from the catalytic site thus changes the rate-determining step of the GroEL14-ATPase cycle. In the cell, the concentrations of Mg2+ and Mn2+ ions are such that both divalent ions may modulate chaperonin activity.     

Chaperone activity and structure of monomeric polypeptide binding domains of GroEL

The chaperonin GroEL is a large complex composed of 14 identical 57-kDa subunits that requires ATP and GroES for some of its activities. We find that a monomeric polypeptide corresponding to residues 191 to 345 has the activity of the tetradecamer both in facilitating the refolding of rhodanese and cyclophilin A in the absence of ATP and in catalyzing the unfolding of native barnase. Its crystal structure, solved at 2.5 A resolution, shows a well-ordered domain with the same fold as in intact GroEL. We have thus isolated the active site of the complex allosteric molecular chaperone, which functions as a "minichaperone." This has mechanistic implications: the presence of a central cavity in the GroEL complex is not essential for those representative activities in vitro, and neither are the allosteric properties. The function of the allosteric behavior on the binding of GroES and ATP must be to regulate the affinity of the protein for its various substrates in vivo, where the cavity may also be required for special functions.     

GroEL-GroES-mediated protein folding requires an intact central cavity

The chaperonin GroEL is an oligomeric double ring structure that, together with the cochaperonin GroES, assists protein folding. Biochemical analyses indicate that folding occurs in a cis ternary complex in which substrate is sequestered within the GroEL central cavity underneath GroES. Recently, however, studies of GroEL "minichaperones" containing only the apical substrate binding subdomain have questioned the functional importance of substrate encapsulation within GroEL-GroES complexes. Minichaperones were reported to assist folding despite the fact that they are monomeric and therefore cannot form a central cavity. Here we compare directly the folding activity of minichaperones with that of the full GroEL-GroES system. In agreement with earlier studies, minichaperones assist folding of some proteins. However, this effect is observed only under conditions where substantial spontaneous folding is also observed and is indistinguishable from that resulting from addition of the nonchaperone protein alpha-casein. By contrast, the full GroE system efficiently promotes folding of several substrates under conditions where essentially no spontaneous folding is observed. These data argue that the full GroEL folding activity requires the intact GroEL-GroES complex, and in light of previous studies, underscore the importance of substrate encapsulation for providing a folding environment distinct from the bulk solution.     

Atomic force microscopy detects changes in the interaction forces between GroEL and substrate proteins

The structure of the Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL has been investigated by tapping-mode atomic force microscopy (AFM) under liquid. High-resolution images can be obtained, which show the up-right position of GroEL adsorbed on mica with the substrate-binding site on top. Because of this orientation, the interaction between GroEL and two substrate proteins, citrate synthase from Saccharomyces cerevisiae with a destabilizing Gly-->Ala mutation and RTEM beta-lactamase from Escherichia coli with two Cys-->Ala mutations, could be studied by force spectroscopy under different conditions. The results show that the interaction force decreases in the presence of ATP (but not of ATPgammaS) and that the force is smaller for native-like proteins than for the fully denatured ones. It also demonstrates that the interaction energy with GroEL increases with increasing molecular weight. By measuring the interaction force changes between the chaperonin and the two different substrate proteins, we could specifically detect GroEL conformational changes upon nucleotide binding.