Action of the Chaperonin GroEL/ES on a Non-native Substrate Observed with Single-Molecule FRET

The double ring-shaped chaperonin GroEL binds a wide range of non-native polypeptides within its central cavity and, together with its cofactor GroES, assists their folding in an ATP-dependent manner. The conformational cycle of GroEL/ES has been studied extensively but little is known about how the environment in the central cavity affects substrate conformation. Here, we use the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein VHL as a model substrate for studying the action of the GroEL/ES system on a bound polypeptide. Fluorescent labeling of pairs of sites on VHL for fluorescence (Förster) resonant energy transfer (FRET) allows VHL to be used to explore how GroEL binding and GroEL/ES/nucleotide binding affect the substrate conformation. On average, upon binding to GroEL, all pairs of labeling sites experience compaction relative to the unfolded protein while single-molecule FRET distributions show significant heterogeneity. Upon addition of GroES and ATP to close the GroEL cavity, on average further FRET increases occur between the two hydrophobic regions of VHL, accompanied by FRET decreases between the N- and C-termini. This suggests that ATP- and GroES-induced confinement within the GroEL cavity remodels bound polypeptides by causing expansion (or racking) of some regions and compaction of others, most notably, the hydrophobic core. However, single-molecule observations of the specific FRET changes for individual proteins at the moment of ATP/GroES addition reveal that a large fraction of the population shows the opposite behavior; that is, FRET decreases between the hydrophobic regions and FRET increases for the N- and C-termini. Our time-resolved single-molecule analysis reveals the underlying heterogeneity of the action of GroES/EL on a bound polypeptide substrate, which might arise from the random nature of the specific binding to the various identical subunits of GroEL, and might help explain why multiple rounds of binding and hydrolysis are required for some chaperonin substrates.     

GroEL mediates protein folding with a two successive timer mechanism

GroEL encapsulates nonnative substrate proteins in a central cavity capped by GroES, providing a safe folding cage. Conventional models assume that a single timer lasting approximately 8 s governs the ATP hydrolysis-driven GroEL chaperonin cycle. We examine single molecule imaging of GFP folding within the cavity, binding release dynamics of GroEL-GroES, ensemble measurements of GroEL/substrate FRET, and the initial kinetics of GroEL ATPase activity. We conclude that the cycle consists of two successive timers of approximately 3 s and approximately 5 s duration. During the first timer, GroEL is bound to ATP, substrate protein, and GroES. When the first timer ends, the substrate protein is released into the central cavity and folding begins. ATP hydrolysis and phosphate release immediately follow this transition. ADP, GroES, and substrate depart GroEL after the second timer is complete. This mechanism explains how GroES binding to a GroEL-substrate complex encapsulates the substrate rather than allowing it to escape into solution.     

Active Cage Mechanism of Chaperonin-Assisted Protein Folding Demonstrated at Single-Molecule Level

The cylindrical chaperonin GroEL and its lid-shaped cofactor GroES of Escherichia coli have an essential role in assisting protein folding by transiently encapsulating non-native substrate in an ATP-regulated mechanism. It remains controversial whether the chaperonin system functions solely as an infinite dilution chamber, preventing off-pathway aggregation, or actively enhances folding kinetics by modulating the folding energy landscape. Here we developed single-molecule approaches to distinguish between passive and active chaperonin mechanisms. Using low protein concentrations (100 pM) to exclude aggregation, we measured the spontaneous and GroEL/ES-assisted folding of double-mutant maltose binding protein (DM-MBP) by single-pair fluorescence resonance energy transfer and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy. We find that GroEL/ES accelerates folding of DM-MBP up to 8-fold over the spontaneous folding rate. Accelerated folding is achieved by encapsulation of folding intermediate in the GroEL/ES cage, independent of repetitive cycles of protein binding and release from GroEL. Moreover, photoinduced electron transfer experiments provided direct physical evidence that the confining environment of the chaperonin restricts polypeptide chain dynamics. This effect is mediated by the net-negatively charged wall of the GroEL/ES cavity, as shown using the GroEL mutant EL(KKK2) in which the net-negative charge is removed. EL(KKK2)/ES functions as a passive cage in which folding occurs at the slow spontaneous rate. Taken together our findings suggest that protein encapsulation can accelerate folding by entropically destabilizing folding intermediates, in strong support of an active chaperonin mechanism in the folding of some proteins. Accelerated folding is biologically significant as it adjusts folding rates relative to the speed of protein synthesis.     

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.     

Dual function of protein confinement in chaperonin-assisted protein folding.

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates the folding of a range of newly synthesized polypeptides in the bacterial cytosol. Using a rapid biotin-streptavidin-based inhibition of chaperonin function, we show that the cage formed by GroEL and its cofactor GroES can have a dual role in promoting folding. First, enclosure of nonnative protein in the GroEL:GroES complex is essential for folding to proceed unimpaired by aggregation. Second, folding inside the cage can be significantly faster than folding in free solution, independently of ATP-driven cycles of GroES binding and release. This suggests that confinement of unfolded protein in the narrow hydrophilic space of the chaperonin cage smoothes the energy landscape for the folding of some proteins, increasing the flux of folding intermediates toward the native state.     

Folding of malate dehydrogenase inside the GroEL-GroES cavity

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative substrate protein in the hydrophobic central cavity of an open ring. ATP and GroES binding to the same ring converts this cavity into an encapsulated, hydrophilic chamber that mediates productive folding. A 'rack' mechanism of initial protein unfolding proposes that, upon GroES and ATP binding, the polypeptide is stretched between the binding sites on the twisting apical domains of GroEL before complete release into the chamber. Here, the structure of malate dehydrogenase (MDH) subunit during folding is monitored by deuterium exchange, peptic fragment production and mass spectrometry. When bound to GroEL, MDH exhibits a core of partially protected secondary structure that is only modestly deprotected upon ATP and GroES binding. Moreover, deprotection is broadly distributed throughout MDH, suggesting that it results from breaking hydrogen bonds between MDH and the cavity wall or global destabilization, as opposed to forced mechanical unfolding.     

Analysis of peptides and proteins in their binding to GroEL

The GroEL–GroES is an essential molecular chaperon system that assists protein folding in cell. Binding of various substrate proteins to GroEL is one of the key aspects in GroEL‐assisted protein folding. Small peptides may mimic segments of the substrate proteins in contact with GroEL and allow detailed structural analysis of the interactions. A model peptide SBP has been shown to bind to a region in GroEL that is important for binding of substrate proteins. Here, we investigated whether the observed GroEL–SBP interaction represented those of GroEL–substrate proteins, and whether SBP was able to mimic various aspects of substrate proteins in GroE‐assisted protein folding cycle. We found that SBP competed with substrate proteins, including α‐lactalbumin, rhodanese, and malate dehydrogenase, in binding to GroEL. SBP stimulated GroEL ATP hydrolysis rate in a manner similar to that of α‐lactalbumin. SBP did not prevent GroES from binding to GroEL, and GroES association reduced the ATPase rates of GroEL/SBP and GroEL/α‐lactalbumin to a comparable extent. Binding of both SBP and α‐lactalbumin to apo GroEL was dominated by hydrophobic interaction. Interestingly, association of α‐lactalbumin to GroEL/GroES was thermodynamically distinct from that to GroEL with reduced affinity and decreased contribution from hydrophobic interaction. However, SBP did not display such differential binding behaviors to apo GroEL and GroEL/GroES, likely due to the lack of a contiguous polypeptide chain that links all of the bound peptide fragments. Nevertheless, studies using peptides provide valuable information on the nature of GroEL–substrate protein interaction, which is central to understand the mechanism of GroEL‐assisted protein folding. Copyright © 2010 European Peptide Society and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Monitoring protein conformation along the pathway of chaperonin-assisted folding

The GroEL/GroES chaperonin system mediates protein folding in the bacterial cytosol. Newly synthesized proteins reach GroEL via transfer from upstream chaperones such as DnaK/DnaJ (Hsp70). Here we employed single molecule and ensemble FRET to monitor the conformational transitions of a model substrate as it proceeds along this chaperone pathway. We find that DnaK/DnaJ stabilizes the protein in collapsed states that fold exceedingly slowly. Transfer to GroEL results in unfolding, with a fraction of molecules reaching locally highly expanded conformations. ATP-induced domain movements in GroEL cause transient further unfolding and rapid mobilization of protein segments with moderate hydrophobicity, allowing partial compaction on the GroEL surface. The more hydrophobic regions are released upon subsequent protein encapsulation in the central GroEL cavity by GroES, completing compaction and allowing rapid folding. Segmental chain release and compaction may be important in avoiding misfolding by proteins that fail to fold efficiently through spontaneous hydrophobic collapse.     

Chaperones GroEL/GroES Accelerate the Refolding of a Multidomain Protein through Modulating On-pathway Intermediates

Despite a vast amount information on the interplay of GroEL, GroES, and ATP in chaperone-assisted folding, the molecular details on the conformational dynamics of folding polypeptide during its GroEL/GroES-assisted folding cycle is quite limited. Practically no such studies have been reported to date on large proteins, which often have difficulty folding in vitro. The effect of the GroEL/GroES chaperonin system on the folding pathway of an 82-kDa slow folding protein, malate synthase G (MSG), was investigated. GroEL bound to the burst phase intermediate of MSG and accelerated the slowest kinetic phase associated with the formation of native topology in the spontaneous folding pathway. GroEL slowly induced conformational changes on the bound burst phase intermediate, which was then transformed into a more folding-compatible form. Subsequent addition of ATP or GroES/ATP to the GroEL-MSG complex led to the formation of the native state via a compact intermediate with the rate several times faster than that of spontaneous refolding. The presence of GroES doubled the ATP-dependent reactivation rate of bound MSG by preventing multiple cycles of its GroEL binding and release. Because GroES bound to the trans side of GroEL-MSG complex, it may be anticipated that confinement of the substrate underneath the co-chaperone is not required for accelerating the rate in the assisted folding pathway. The potential role of GroEL/GroES in assisted folding is most likely to modulate the conformation of MSG intermediates that can fold faster and thereby eliminate the possibility of partial aggregation caused by the slow folding intermediates during its spontaneous refolding pathway.     

Triggering protein folding within the GroEL-GroES complex

The folding of many proteins depends on the assistance of chaperonins like GroEL and GroES and involves the enclosure of substrate proteins inside an internal cavity that is formed when GroES binds to GroEL in the presence of ATP. Precisely how assembly of the GroEL-GroES complex leads to substrate protein encapsulation and folding remains poorly understood. Here we use a chemically modified mutant of GroEL (EL43Py) to uncouple substrate protein encapsulation from release and folding. Although EL43Py correctly initiates a substrate protein encapsulation reaction, this mutant stalls in an intermediate allosteric state of the GroEL ring, which is essential for both GroES binding and the forced unfolding of the substrate protein. This intermediate conformation of the GroEL ring possesses simultaneously high affinity for both GroES and non-native substrate protein, thus preventing escape of the substrate protein while GroES binding and substrate protein compaction takes place. Strikingly, assembly of the folding-active GroEL-GroES complex appears to involve a strategic delay in ATP hydrolysis that is coupled to disassembly of the old, ADP-bound GroEL-GroES complex on the opposite ring.     

Chaperone activity of a chimeric GroEL protein that can exist in a single or double ring form.

The molecular chaperone GroEL is a protein complex consisting of two rings each of seven identical subunits. It is thought to act by providing a cavity in which a protein substrate can fold into a form that has no propensity to aggregate. Substrate proteins are sequestered in the cavity while they fold, and prevented from diffusion out of the cavity by the action of the GroES complex, that caps the open end of the cavity. A key step in the mechanism of action of GroEL is the transmission of a conformational change between the two rings, induced by the binding of nucleotides to the GroEL ring opposite to the one containing the polypeptide substrate. This conformational change then leads to the discharge of GroES from GroEL, enabling polypeptide release. Single ring forms of GroEL are thus predicted to be unable to chaperone the folding of GroES-dependent substrates efficiently, since they are unable to discharge the bound GroES and unable to release folded protein. We describe here a detailed functional analysis of a chimeric GroEL protein, which we show to exist in solution in equilibrium between single and double ring forms. We demonstrate that whereas the double ring form of the GroEL chimera functions effectively in refolding of a GroES-dependent substrate, the single ring form does not. The single ring form of the chimera, however, is able to chaperone the folding of a substrate that does not require GroES for its efficient folding. We further demonstrate that the double ring structure of GroEL is likely to be required for its activity in vivo.     

A newly synthesized protein interacts with GroES on the surface of chaperonin GroEL.

To facilitate folding and assembly of different proteins, chaperonin GroEL requires the presence of its helper protein GroES. Using a photochemical cross-linking approach, we show that GroES and newly synthesized pre-beta-lactamase (pre-beta lac) contact with each other only within the ternary complex with GroEL. Possibly owing to this contact GroES is able to directly influence the pre-beta lac/GroEL interaction. Furthermore, the cross-linking of pre-beta lac to GroES suggests that the binding of the protein ligands to GroEL occurs near the GroES binding site, known to be in the central hole space of GroEL.     

Structural features of the GroEL-GroES nano-cage required for rapid folding of encapsulated protein

GroEL and GroES form a chaperonin nano-cage for proteins up to approximately 60 kDa to fold in isolation. Here we explored the structural features of the chaperonin cage critical for rapid folding of encapsulated substrates. Modulating the volume of the GroEL central cavity affected folding speed in accordance with confinement theory. Small proteins (approximately 30 kDa) folded more rapidly as the size of the cage was gradually reduced to a point where restriction in space slowed folding dramatically. For larger proteins (approximately 40-50 kDa), either expanding or reducing cage volume decelerated folding. Additionally, interactions with the C-terminal, mildly hydrophobic Gly-Gly-Met repeat sequences of GroEL protruding into the cavity, and repulsion effects from the negatively charged cavity wall were required for rapid folding of some proteins. We suggest that by combining these features, the chaperonin cage provides a physical environment optimized to catalyze the structural annealing of proteins with kinetically complex folding pathways.     

Polypeptide in the chaperonin cage partly protrudes out and then folds inside or escapes outside

The current mechanistic model of chaperonin-assisted protein folding assumes that the substrate protein in the cage, formed by GroEL central cavity capped with GroES, is isolated from outside and exists as a free polypeptide. However, using ATPase-deficient GroEL mutants that keep GroES bound, we found that, in the rate-limiting intermediate of a chaperonin reaction, the unfolded polypeptide in the cage partly protrudes through a narrow space near the GroEL/GroES interface. Then, the entire polypeptide is released either into the cage or to the outside medium. The former adopts a native structure very rapidly and the latter undergoes spontaneous folding. Partition of the in-cage folding and the escape varies among substrate proteins and is affected by hydrophobic interaction between the polypeptide and GroEL cavity wall. The ATPase-active GroEL with decreased in-cage folding produced less of a native model substrate protein in Escherichia coli cells. Thus, the polypeptide in the critical GroEL-GroES complex is neither free nor completely confined in the cage, but it is interacting with GroEL's apical region, partly protruding to outside.     

Requirement for GroEL/GroES-dependent protein folding under nonpermissive conditions of macromolecular crowding

Macromolecular crowding is a critical parameter affecting the efficiency of cellular protein folding. Here we show that the proteins dihydrofolate reductase, enolase, and green fluorescent protein, which can fold spontaneously in diluted buffer, lose this ability in a crowded environment. Instead, they accumulate as soluble, protease-sensitive non-native species. Their folding becomes dependent on the complete GroEL/GroES chaperonin system and is not affected by trap-GroEL, indicating that folding has to occur in the chaperonin cavity with release of nativelike proteins into the bulk solution. In addition, we demonstrate that efficient folding in the chaperonin cavity requires ATP hydrolysis, as formation of ternary GroEL/GroES complexes with substrate proteins in the presence of ADP results only in very inefficient reactivation. However, protein refolding reactions using ADP-fluoroaluminate complexes, or single-ring GroEL and GroES under conditions where only a single round of ATP hydrolysis occurs, yield large amounts of refolded enzymes. Thus, the mode of initial ternary complex formation appears to be critical for subsequent productive release of substrate into the cavity under certain crowding conditions, and is only efficient when triggered by ATP hydrolysis. Our data indicate that stringent conditions of crowding can impart a stronger dependence of folding proteins on the assistance by chaperonins.     

GroEL walks the fine line: the subtle balance of substrate and co-chaperonin binding by GroEL. A combinatorial investigation by design, selection and screening

While support in protein folding by molecular chaperones is extremely efficient for endogenous polypeptides, it often fails for recombinant proteins in a bacterial host, thus constituting a major hurdle for protein research and biotechnology. To understand the reasons for this difference and to answer the question of whether it is feasible to design tailor-made chaperones, we investigated one of the most prominent bacterial chaperones, the GroEL/ES ring complex. On the basis of structural data, we designed and constructed a combinatorial GroEL library, where the substrate-binding site was randomized. Screening and selection experiments with this library demonstrated that substrate binding and release is supported by many variants, but the majority of the library members failed to assist in chaperonin-mediated protein folding under conditions where spontaneous folding is suppressed. These findings revealed a conflict between binding of substrate and binding of the co-chaperonin GroES. As a consequence, the window of mutational freedom in that region of GroEL is very small. In screening experiments, we could identify GroEL variants slightly improved for a given substrate, which were still promiscuous. As the substrate-binding site of the GroEL molecule overlaps strongly with the site of cofactor binding, the outcome of our experiments suggests that maintenance of cofactor binding affinity is more critical for chaperonin-mediated protein folding than energetically optimized substrate recognition.     

GroEL/GroES-mediated folding of a protein too large to be encapsulated.

The chaperonin GroEL binds nonnative proteins too large to fit inside the productive GroEL-GroES cis cavity, but whether and how it assists their folding has remained unanswered. We have examined yeast mitochondrial aconitase, an 82 kDa monomeric Fe(4)S(4) cluster-containing enzyme, observed to aggregate in chaperonin-deficient mitochondria. We observed that aconitase folding both in vivo and in vitro requires both GroEL and GroES, and proceeds via multiple rounds of binding and release. Unlike the folding of smaller substrates, however, this mechanism does not involve cis encapsulation but, rather, requires GroES binding to the trans ring to release nonnative substrate, which likely folds in solution. Following the phase of ATP/GroES-dependent refolding, GroEL stably bound apoaconitase, releasing active holoenzyme upon Fe(4)S(4) cofactor formation, independent of ATP and GroES.     

The Escherichia coli heat shock proteins GroEL and GroES modulate the folding of the beta-lactamase precursor.

One of the fundamental problems in biochemistry is the role of accessory proteins in the process of protein folding. The Escherichia coli heat shock protein complex GroEL/ES has been suggested to be a 'chaperonin' and be involved in both oligomer assembly as well as protein transport through the membrane. We show here that the folding of the purified precursor of beta-lactamase is inhibited by purified GroEL or the GroEL/ES complex with a stoichiometry of one particle per molecule of pre-beta-lactamase. Purified GroES alone has no effect on folding. After Mg2+ ATP addition folding resumes and the yield of active enzyme is higher than in the absence of GroEL or GroEL/ES. Unexpectedly, GroEL or GroEL/ES, when added to folded pre-beta-lactamase, lead to an apparent net 'unfolding', probably to a collapsed state of the protein, which can be reversed by the addition of Mg2+ ATP. The reversible and Mg2+ ATP-dependent association of GroEL/ES with non-native proteins might explain its postulated role in both protein transport and oligomer assembly.     

Determination of the number of active GroES subunits in the fused heptamer GroES required for interactions with GroEL

A double-heptamer ring chaperonin GroEL binds denatured substrate protein, ATP, and GroES to the same heptamer ring and encapsulates substrate into the central cavity underneath GroES where productive folding occurs. GroES is a disk-shaped heptamer, and each subunit has a GroEL-binding loop. The residues of the GroEL subunit responsible for GroES binding largely overlap those involved in substrate binding, and the mechanism by which GroES can replace the substrate when GroES binds to GroEL/substrate complex remains to be clarified. To address this question, we generated single polypeptide GroES by fusing seven subunits with various combinations of active and GroEL binding-defective subunits. Functional tests of the fused GroES variants indicated that four active GroES subunits were required for efficient formation of the stable GroEL/GroES complex and five subunits were required for the productive GroEL/substrate/GroES complex. An increase in the number of defective GroES subunits resulted in a slowing of encapsulation and folding. These results indicate the presence of an intermediate GroEL/substrate/GroES complex in which the substrate and GroES bind to GroEL by sharing seven common binding sites.     

GroEL assisted folding of large polypeptide substrates in Escherichia coli: Present scenario and assignments for the future

Escherichia coli chaperonins GroEL and GroES are indispensable for survival and growth of the cell since they provide essential assistance to the folding of many newly translated proteins in the cell. Recent studies indicate that a substantial portion of the proteins involved in the host pathways are completely dependent on GroEL–GroES for their folding and hence providing some explanation for why GroEL is essential for cell growth. Many proteins either small-single domain or large multidomains require assistance from GroEL–ES during their lifetime. Proteins of size up to 70 kDa can fold via the cis mechanism during GroEL–ES assisted pathway, but other proteins (>70 kDa) that cannot be pushed inside the cavity of GroEL–ATP complex upon binding of GroES fold by an evolved mechanism called trans. In recent years, much work has been done on revealing facts about the cis mechanism involving the GroEL assisted folding of small proteins whereas the trans mechanism with larger polypeptide substrates still remains under cover. In order to disentangle the role of chaperonin GroEL–GroES in the folding of large E. coli proteins, this review discusses a number of issues like the range of large polypeptide substrates acted on by GroEL. Do all these substrates need the complete chaperonin system along with ATP for their folding? Does GroEL act as foldase or holdase during the process? We conclude with a discussion of the various queries that need to be resolved in the future for an extensive understanding of the mechanism of GroEL mediated folding of large substrate proteins in E. coli cytosol.