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.     

Prognosis for total control of complex partial and secondarily generalized tonic clonic seizures. Department of Veterans Affairs Epilepsy Cooperative Studies No. 118 and No. 264 Group

When chaperonins GroEL and GroES are incubated under functional conditions in the presence of ATP (5 mM) and K+ (150 mM), GroEL-GroES complexes appear in the incubation mixture, that are either asymmetric (1:1 GroEL:GroES oligomer ratio) or symmetric (1:2 GroEL:GroES oligomer ratio). The percentage of symmetric complexes present is directly related to the [ATP]/[ADP] ratio and to the K+ concentration. Kinetic analysis shows that there is a cycle of formation and disappearance of symmetric complexes. A correlation between the presence of symmetric complexes in the incubation mixture and its rhodanese folding activity suggests some active role of these complexes in the protein folding process. Accordingly, under functional conditions, symmetric complexes are found to contain denatured rhodanese. These data suggest that binding of substrate inside the GroEL cavity takes place before the symmetric complex is formed.     

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.     

In vivo activities of GroEL minichaperones

Fragments encompassing the apical domain of GroEL, called minichaperones, facilitate the refolding of several proteins in vitro without requiring GroES, ATP, or the cage-like structure of multimeric GroEL. We have identified the smallest minichaperone that is active in vitro in chaperoning the refolding of rhodanese and cyclophilin A: GroEL(193-335). This finding raises the question of whether the minichaperones are active under more stringent conditions in vivo. The smallest minichaperones complement two temperature-sensitive Escherichia coli groEL alleles, EL44 and EL673, at 43 degreesC. Although they cannot replace GroEL in cells in which the chromosomal groEL gene has been deleted by P1 transduction, GroEL(193-335) enhances the colony-forming ability of such cells when limiting amounts of GroEL are expressed from a tightly regulated plasmid. Surprisingly, we found that overexpression of GroEL prevents plaque formation by bacteriophage lambda and inhibits replication of the lambda origin-dependent plasmid, Lorist6. The minichaperones also inhibit Lorist6 replication, but less markedly. The complex quaternary structure of GroEL, its central cavity, and the structural allosteric changes that take place on the binding of nucleotides and GroES are not essential for all of its functions in vivo.     

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.     

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.     

Characterization of a functional GroEL14(GroES7)2 chaperonin hetero-oligomer

Chaperonins GroEL and GroES form two types of hetero-oligomers in vitro that can mediate the folding of proteins. Chemical cross-linking and electron microscopy showed that in the presence of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), two GroES7 rings can successively bind a single GroEL14 core oligomer. The symmetric GroEL14(GroES7)2 chaperonin, whose central cavity appears obstructed by two GroES7 rings, can nonetheless stably bind and assist the ATP-dependent refolding of RuBisCO enzyme. Thus, unfolded proteins first bind and possibly fold on the external envelope of the chaperonin hetero-oligomer.     

Structural adaptations in the specialized bacteriophage T4 co-chaperonin Gp31 expand the size of the Anfinsen cage

The Gp31 protein from bacteriophage T4 functionally substitutes for the bacterial co-chaperonin GroES in assisted protein folding reactions both in vitro and in vivo. But Gp31 is required for the folding and/or assembly of the T4 major capsid protein Gp23, and this requirement cannot be satisfied by GroES. The 2.3 A crystal structure of Gp31 shows that its tertiary and quaternary structures are similar to those of GroES despite the existence of only 14% sequence identity between the two proteins. However, Gp31 shows a series of structural adaptations which will increase the size and the hydrophilicity of the "Anfinsen cage," the enclosed cavity within the GroEL/GroES complex that is the location of the chaperonin-assisted protein folding reaction.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The ins and outs of a molecular chaperone machine

Genetic and biochemical work has highlighted the biological importance of the GroEL/GroES (Hsp60/Hsp10; cpn60/cpn10) chaperone machine in protein folding. GroEL's donut-shaped structure has attracted the attention of structural biologists because of its elegance as well as the secrets (substrates) it can hide. The recent determination of the GroES and GroEL/GroES structures provides a glimpse of their plasticity, revealing dramatic conformational changes that point to an elaborate mechanism, coupling ATP hydrolysis to substrate release by GroEL.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Both the Escherichia coli chaperone systems, GroEL/GroES and DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE, can reactivate heat-treated RNA polymerase. Different mechanisms for the same activity

In this work we show that the GroEL (Hsp60 equivalent) chaperone protein can protected purified Escherichia coli RNA polymerase (RNAP) holoenzyme from heat inactivation better than the DnaK (Hsp70 equivalent) chaperone can. In this protection reaction, the GroES protein is not essential, but its presence reduces the amount of GroEL required. GroEL and GroES can also reactivate heat-inactivated RNAP in the presence of ATP. The mutant GroEL673 protein, with or without GroES, is incapable of reactivating heat-inactivated RNAP. GroEL673 can only protect RNAP, and this protecting ability is not stimulated by GroES. The mechanism by which the DnaJ and GrpE heat shock proteins contribute to DnaK's ability to reactivate heat-inactivated RNAP GroEL673 has also been investigated. We found that the DnaJ protein substantially reduces the levels of DnaK protein needed in this reactivation assay. However, the observed lag in reactivation is diminished only in the additional presence of the GrpE protein. Hence, DnaJ and GrpE are involved in both steps of this reactivation reaction (recognition of substrate and release of chaperone from the substrate-chaperone complex) while, in the case of the GroEL-dependent reaction, GroES is involved only during the release of chaperone from the substrate-chaperone complex.     

Preformed GroES oligomers are not required as functional cochaperonins

We have previously shown that the C-terminal sequence of GroES is required for oligomerization [Seale and Horowitz (1995), J. Biol. Chem. 270, 30268-30270]. In this report, we have generated a C-terminal deletion mutant of GroES with a significantly destabilized oligomer and have investigated its function in the chaperonin-assisted protein folding cycle. Removal of the two C-terminal residues of GroES results in a cochaperonin [GroESD(96-97)] that is monomeric at concentrations where GroES function is assessed. Using equilibrium ultracentrifugation, we measured the dissociation constant for the oligomer-monomer equilibrium to be 7.3 x 10(-34)M6. The GroESD(96-97) is fully active as a cochaperonin. This mutant is able to inhibit the ATPase activity of GroEL to levels comparable to wild-type GroES. It is also able to assist the refolding of urea-denatured rhodanese by GroEL. While GroESD(96-97) can function at levels comparable to wild-type GroES, higher concentrations of mutant are required to produce the same effect. These results support the idea that the performed GroES heptamer is not required for function, but they suggest that the oligomeric cochaperonin is most efficient.     

GroEL-mediated protein folding proceeds by multiple rounds of binding and release of nonnative forms

The chaperonin GroEL is a ribosome-sized double-ring structure that assists in folding a diverse set of polypeptides. We have examined the fate of a polypeptide during a chaperonin-mediated folding reaction. Strikingly, we find that, upon addition of ATP and the cochaperonin GroES, polypeptide is released rapidly from GroEL in a predominantly nonnative conformation that can be trapped by mutant forms of GroEL that are capable of binding but not releasing substrate. Released polypeptide undergoes kinetic partitioning: a fraction completes folding while the remainder is rebound rapidly by other GroEL molecules. Folding appears to occur in an all-or-none manner, as proteolysis and tryptophan fluorescence indicate that after rebinding, polypeptide has the same structure as in the original complex. These observations suggest that GroEL functions by carrying out multiple rounds of binding aggregation-prone or kinetically trapped intermediates, maintaining them in an unfolded state, and releasing them to attempt to fold in solution.     

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.     

In vivo observation of polypeptide flux through the bacterial chaperonin system

The quantitative contribution of chaperonin GroEL to protein folding in E. coli was analyzed. A diverse set of newly synthesized polypeptides, predominantly between 10-55 kDa, interacts with GroEL, accounting for 10%-15% of all cytoplasmic protein under normal growth conditions, and for 30% or more upon exposure to heat stress. Most proteins leave GroEL rapidly within 10-30 s. We distinguish three classes of substrate proteins: (I) proteins with a chaperonin-independent folding pathway; (II) proteins, more than 50% of total, with an intermediate chaperonin dependence for which normally only a small fraction transits GroEL; and (III) a set of highly chaperonin-dependent proteins, many of which dissociate slowly from GroEL and probably require sequestration of aggregation-sensitive intermediates within the GroEL cavity for successful folding.