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.     

BeF(x) stops the chaperonin cycle of GroEL-GroES and generates a complex with double folding chambers

Coupling with ATP hydrolysis and cooperating with GroES, the double ring chaperonin GroEL assists the folding of other proteins. Here we report novel GroEL-GroES complexes formed in fluoroberyllate (BeF(x)) that can mimic the phosphate part of the enzyme-bound nucleotides. In ATP, BeF(x) stops the functional turnover of GroEL by preventing GroES release and produces a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex in which both GroEL rings contain ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. In ADP, the substrate protein-loaded GroEL cannot bind GroES. In ADP plus BeF(x), however, it can bind GroES to form a stable 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex in which one of GroEL rings contains ADP.BeF(x) and an encapsulated substrate protein. This 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex is converted into the symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex when GroES is supplied in ATP plus BeF(x). Thus, BeF(x) stabilizes two GroEL-GroES complexes; one with a single folding chamber and the other with double folding chambers. These results shed light on the intermediate ADP.P(i) nucleotide states in the functional cycle of GroEL.     

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.     

Revisiting the GroEL-GroES reaction cycle via the symmetric intermediate implied by novel aspects of the GroEL(D398A) mutant

The Escherichia coli chaperonin GroEL is a double-ring chaperone that assists in protein folding with the aid of GroES and ATP. It is believed that GroEL alternates the folding-active rings and that the substrate protein (and GroES) can bind to the open trans-ring only after ATP in the cis-ring is hydrolyzed. However, we found that a substrate protein prebound to the trans-ring remained bound during the first ATP cycle, and this substrate was assisted by GroEL-GroES when the second cycle began. Moreover, a slow ATP-hydrolyzing GroEL mutant (D398A) in the ATP-bound form bound a substrate protein and GroES to the trans-ring. The apparent discrepancy with the results from an earlier study (Rye, H. S., Roseman, A. M., Chen, S., Furtak, K., Fenton, W. A., Saibil, H. R., and Horwich, A. L. (1999) Cell 97, 325-338) can be explained by the previously unnoticed fact that the ATP-bound form of the D398A mutant exists as a symmetric 1:2 GroEL-GroES complex (the "football"-shaped complex) and that the substrate protein (and GroES) in the medium is incorporated into the complex only after the slow turnover. In light of these results, the current model of the GroEL-GroES reaction cycle via the asymmetric 1:1 GroEL-GroES complex deserves reexamination.     

An expanded protein folding cage in the GroEL-gp31 complex

Bacteriophage T4 produces a GroES analogue, gp31, which cooperates with the Escherichia coli GroEL to fold its major coat protein gp23. We have used cryo-electron microscopy and image processing to obtain three-dimensional structures of the E.coli chaperonin GroEL complexed with gp31, in the presence of both ATP and ADP. The GroEL-gp31-ADP map has a resolution of 8.2 A, which allows accurate fitting of the GroEL and gp31 crystal structures. Comparison of this fitted structure with that of the GroEL-GroES-ADP structure previously determined by cryo-electron microscopy shows that the folding cage is expanded. The enlarged volume for folding is consistent with the size of the bacteriophage coat protein gp23, which is the major substrate of GroEL-gp31 chaperonin complex. At 56 kDa, gp23 is close to the maximum size limit of a polypeptide that is thought to fit inside the GroEL-GroES folding cage.     

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.     

Co-translational binding of GroEL to nascent polypeptides is followed by post-translational encapsulation by GroES to mediate protein folding

The eubacterial chaperonins GroEL and GroES are essential chaperones and primarily assist protein folding in the cell. Although the molecular mechanism of the GroEL system has been examined previously, the mechanism by which GroEL and GroES assist folding of nascent polypeptides during translation is still poorly understood. We previously demonstrated a co-translational involvement of the Escherichia coli GroEL in folding of newly synthesized polypeptides using a reconstituted cell-free translation system (Ying, B. W., Taguchi, H., Kondo, M., and Ueda, T. (2005) J. Biol. Chem. 280, 12035-12040). Employing the same system here, we further characterized the mechanism by which GroEL assists folding of translated proteins via encapsulation into the GroEL-GroES cavity. The stable co-translational association between GroEL and the newly synthesized polypeptide is dependent on the length of the nascent chain. Furthermore, GroES is capable of interacting with the GroEL-nascent peptide-ribosome complex, and experiments using a single-ring variant of GroEL clearly indicate that GroES association occurs only at the trans-ring, not the cis-ring, of GroEL. GroEL holds the nascent chain on the ribosome in a polypeptide length-dependent manner and post-translationally encapsulates the polypeptide using the GroES cap to accomplish the chaperonin-mediated folding process.     

Repetitive Protein Unfolding by the trans Ring of the GroEL-GroES Chaperonin Complex Stimulates Folding

A key constraint on the growth of most organisms is the slow and inefficient folding of many essential proteins. To deal with this problem, several diverse families of protein folding machines, known collectively as molecular chaperones, developed early in evolutionary history. The functional role and operational steps of these remarkably complex nanomachines remain subjects of active debate. Here we present evidence that, for the GroEL-GroES chaperonin system, the non-native substrate protein enters the folding cycle on the trans ring of the double-ring GroEL-ATP-GroES complex rather than the ADP-bound complex. The properties of this ATP complex are designed to ensure that non-native substrate protein binds first, followed by ATP and finally GroES. This binding order ensures efficient occupancy of the open GroEL ring and allows for disruption of misfolded structures through two phases of multiaxis unfolding. In this model, repeated cycles of partial unfolding, followed by confinement within the GroEL-GroES chamber, provide the most effective overall mechanism for facilitating the folding of the most stringently dependent GroEL substrate proteins.     

On the maximum size of proteins to stay and fold in the cavity of GroEL underneath GroES.

GroEL encapsulates non-native protein in a folding cage underneath GroES (cis-cavity). Here we report the maximum size of the non-native protein to stay and fold in the cis-cavity. Using total soluble proteins of Escherichia coli in denatured state as binding substrates and protease resistance as the measure of polypeptide held in the cis-cavity, it was estimated that the cis-cavity can accommodate up to approximately 57-kDa non-native proteins. To know if a protein with nearly the maximum size can complete folding in the cis-cavity, we made a 54-kDa protein in which green fluorescent protein (GFP) and its blue fluorescent variant were fused tandem. This fusion protein was captured in the cis-cavity, and folding occurred there. Fluorescence resonance energy transfer proved that both GFP and blue fluorescent protein moieties of the same fused protein were able to fold into native structures in the cis-cavity. Consistently, simulated packing of crystal structures shows that two native GFPs just fit in the cis-cavity. A fusion protein of three GFPs (82 kDa) was also attempted, but, as expected, it was not captured in the cis-cavity.     

Co-translational involvement of the chaperonin GroEL in the folding of newly translated polypeptides

A large fraction of the newly translated polypeptides emerging from the ribosome require certain proteins, the so-called molecular chaperones, to assist in their folding. In Escherichia coli, three major chaperone systems are considered to contribute to the folding of newly synthesized cytosolic polypeptides. Trigger factor (TF), a ribosome-tethered chaperone, and DnaK are known to exhibit overlapping co-translational roles, whereas the cage-shaped GroEL, with the aid of the co-chaperonin, GroES, and ATP, is believed to be implicated in folding only after the polypeptides are released from the ribosome. However, the recent finding that GroEL-GroES overproduction permits the growth of E. coli cells lacking both TF and DnaK raised questions regarding the separate roles of these chaperones. Here, we report the puromycin-sensitive association of GroEL-GroES with translating ribosomes in vivo. Further experiments in vitro, using a reconstituted cell-free translation system, clearly demonstrate that GroEL associates with the translation complex and accomplishes proper folding by encapsulating the newly translated polypeptides in the central cavity formed by GroES. Therefore, we propose that GroEL is a versatile chaperone, which participates in the folding pathway co-translationally and also achieves correct folding post-translationally.     

Stimulating the substrate folding activity of a single ring GroEL variant by modulating the cochaperonin GroES

In mediating protein folding, chaperonin GroEL and cochaperonin GroES form an enclosed chamber for substrate proteins in an ATP-dependent manner. The essential role of the double ring assembly of GroEL is demonstrated by the functional deficiency of the single ring GroEL(SR). The GroEL(SR)-GroES is highly stable with minimal ATPase activity. To restore the ATP cycle and the turnover of the folding chamber, we sought to weaken the GroEL(SR)-GroES interaction systematically by concatenating seven copies of groES to generate groES(7). GroES Ile-25, Val-26, and Leu-27, residues on the GroEL-GroES interface, were substituted with Asp on different groES modules of groES(7). GroES(7) variants activate ATP activity of GroEL(SR), but only some restore the substrate folding function of GroEL(SR), indicating a direct role of GroES in facilitating substrate folding through its dynamics with GroEL. Active GroEL(SR)-GroES(7) systems may resemble mammalian mitochondrial chaperonin systems.     

Football- and bullet-shaped GroEL-GroES complexes coexist during the reaction cycle

GroEL is an Escherichia coli chaperonin that is composed of two heptameric rings stacked back-to-back. GroEL assists protein folding with its cochaperonin GroES in an ATP-dependent manner in vitro and in vivo. However, it is still unclear whether GroES binds to both rings of GroEL simultaneously under physiological conditions. In this study, we monitored the GroEL-GroES interaction in the reaction cycle using fluorescence resonance energy transfer. We found that nearly equivalent amounts of symmetric GroEL-(GroES)(2) (football-shaped) complex and asymmetric GroEL-GroES (bullet-shaped) complex coexist during the functional reaction cycle. We also found that D398A, an ATP hydrolysis defective mutant of GroEL, forms a football-shaped complex with ATP bound to the two rings. Furthermore, we showed that ADP prevents the association of ATP to the trans-ring of GroEL, and as a consequence, the second GroES cannot bind to GroEL. Considering the concentrations of ADP and ATP in E. coli, ADP is expected to have a small effect on the inhibition of GroES binding to the trans-ring of GroEL in vivo. These results suggest that we should reconsider the chaperonin-mediated protein-folding mechanism that involves the football-shaped complex.     

Application of fluorescence resonance energy transfer to the GroEL-GroES chaperonin reaction

Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) is a sensitive and flexible method for studying protein-protein interactions. Here it is applied to the GroEL-GroES chaperonin system to examine the ATP-driven dynamics that underlie protein folding by this chaperone. Relying on the known structures of GroEL and GroES, sites for attachment of fluorescent probes are designed into the sequence of both proteins. Because these sites are brought close in space when GroEL and GroES form a complex, excitation energy can pass from a donor to an acceptor chromophore by FRET. While in ideal circumstances FRET can be used to measure distances, significant population heterogeneity in the donor-to-acceptor distances in the GroEL-GroES complex makes distance determination difficult. This is due to incomplete labeling of these large, oligomeric proteins and to their rotational symmetry. It is shown, however, that FRET can still be used to follow protein-protein interaction dynamics even in a case such as this, where distance measurements are either not practical or not meaningful. In this way, the FRET signal is used as a simple proximity sensor to score the interaction between GroEL and GroES. Similarly, FRET can also be used to follow interactions between GroEL and a fluorescently labeled substrate polypeptide. Thus, while knowledge of molecular structure aids enormously in the design of FRET experiments, structural information is not necessarily required if the aim is to measure the thermodynamics or kinetics of a protein interaction event by following changes in the binding proximity of two components.     

Leu309 plays a critical role in the encapsulation of substrate protein into the internal cavity of GroEL

In the crystal structure of the native GroEL.GroES.substrate protein complex from Thermus thermophilus, one GroEL subunit makes contact with two GroES subunits. One contact is through the H-I helices, and the other is through a novel GXXLE region. The side chain of Leu, in the GXXLE region, forms a hydrophobic cluster with residues of the H helix (Shimamura, T., Koike-Takeshita, A., Yokoyama, K., Masui, R., Murai, N., Yoshida, M., Taguchi, H., and Iwata, S. (2004) Structure (Camb.) 12, 1471-1480). Here, we investigated the functional role of Leu in the GXXLE region, using Escherichia coli GroEL. The results are as follows: (i) cross-linking between introduced cysteines confirmed that the GXXLE region in the E. coli GroEL.GroES complex is also in contact with GroES; (ii) when Leu was replaced by Lys (GroEL(L309K)) or other charged residues, chaperone activity was largely lost; (iii) the GroEL(L309K).substrate complex failed to bind GroES to produce a stable GroEL(L309K).GroES.substrate complex, whereas free GroEL(L309K) bound GroES normally; (iv) the GroEL(L309K).GroES.substrate complex was stabilized with BeF(x), but the substrate protein in the complex was readily digested by protease, indicating that it was not properly encapsulated into the internal cavity of the complex. Thus, conformational communication between the two GroES contact sites, the H helix and the GXXLE region (through Leu(309)), appears to play a critical role in encapsulation of the substrate.     

Role of Denatured-State Properties in Chaperonin Action Probed by Single-Molecule Spectroscopy

The bacterial chaperonin GroEL/GroES assists folding of a broad spectrum of denatured and misfolded proteins. Here, we explore the limits of this remarkable promiscuity by mapping two denatured proteins with very different conformational properties, rhodanese and cyclophilin A, during binding and encapsulation by GroEL/GroES with single-molecule spectroscopy, microfluidic mixing, and ensemble kinetics. We find that both proteins bind to GroEL with high affinity in a reaction involving substantial conformational adaptation. However, whereas the compact denatured state of rhodanese is encapsulated efficiently upon addition of GroES and ATP, the more expanded and unstructured denatured cyclophilin A is not encapsulated but is expelled into solution. The origin of this surprising disparity is the weaker interactions of cyclophilin A with a transiently formed GroEL-GroES complex, which may serve as a crucial checkpoint for substrate discrimination.     

The C-terminal Tails of the Bacterial Chaperonin GroEL Stimulate Protein Folding by Directly Altering the Conformation of a Substrate Protein

Many essential cellular proteins fold only with the assistance of chaperonin machines like the GroEL-GroES system of Escherichia coli. However, the mechanistic details of assisted protein folding by GroEL-GroES remain the subject of ongoing debate. We previously demonstrated that GroEL-GroES enhances the productive folding of a kinetically trapped substrate protein through unfolding, where both binding energy and the energy of ATP hydrolysis are used to disrupt the inhibitory misfolded states. Here, we show that the intrinsically disordered yet highly conserved C-terminal sequence of the GroEL subunits directly contributes to substrate protein unfolding. Interactions between the C terminus and the non-native substrate protein alter the binding position of the substrate protein on the GroEL apical surface. The C-terminal tails also impact the conformational state of the substrate protein during capture and encapsulation on the GroEL ring. Importantly, removal of the C termini results in slower overall folding, reducing the fraction of the substrate protein that commits quickly to a productive folding pathway and slowing several kinetically distinct folding transitions that occur inside the GroEL-GroES cavity. The conserved C-terminal tails of GroEL are thus important for protein folding from the beginning to the end of the chaperonin reaction cycle.     

Mimicking the action of GroEL in molecular dynamics simulations: application to the refinement of protein structures

Bacterial chaperonin, GroEL, together with its co-chaperonin, GroES, facilitates the folding of a variety of polypeptides. Experiments suggest that GroEL stimulates protein folding by multiple cycles of binding and release. Misfolded proteins first bind to an exposed hydrophobic surface on GroEL. GroES then encapsulates the substrate and triggers its release into the central cavity of the GroEL/ES complex for folding. In this work, we investigate the possibility to facilitate protein folding in molecular dynamics simulations by mimicking the effects of GroEL/ES namely, repeated binding and release, together with spatial confinement. During the binding stage, the (metastable) partially folded proteins are allowed to attach spontaneously to a hydrophobic surface within the simulation box. This destabilizes the structures, which are then transferred into a spatially confined cavity for folding. The approach has been tested by attempting to refine protein structural models generated using the ROSETTA procedure for ab initio structure prediction. Dramatic improvements in regard to the deviation of protein models from the corresponding experimental structures were observed. The results suggest that the primary effects of the GroEL/ES system can be mimicked in a simple coarse-grained manner and be used to facilitate protein folding in molecular dynamics simulations. Furthermore, the results support the assumption that the spatial confinement in GroEL/ES assists the folding of encapsulated proteins.     

High hydrostatic pressure can probe the effects of functionally related ligands on the quaternary structures of the chaperonins GroEL and GroES

We investigated the effects of high hydrostatic pressure in the range of 1--3 kilobars on tetradecameric GroEL, heptameric GroES, and the GroEL-GroES complex. Unlike GroEL monomers formed by urea dissociation, which can be reassembled back to the tetradecamer, the pressure-dissociated monomers do not reassemble readily. This indicates an alteration of their native structures, an example of conformational drift. Pressure versus time profiles and kinetics of the dissociation of both GroEL and GroES at fixed pressures were monitored by light scattering. Unlike GroEL, GroES monomers do reassociate readily. Reaction conditions were varied by adding ATP, Mg(2+), ADP, AMP-PNP, and KCl. At any individual pressure, the dissociation process is governed by both thermodynamics and kinetics. This leads to the decrease in the yield of monomers at lower pressures. In the presence of Mg(2+) and KCl, GroEL is stable up to 3 kilobars. The presence of either ATP or ADP but not AMP-PNP leads to GroEL dissociation at lower pressures. Interestingly, the GroEL-GroES complex is very stable in the range of 1--2.5 kilobars. However, the addition of ADP destabilizes the complex, which dissociates completely at 1.5 kilobars. The results are rationalized in terms of different degrees of cooperativity between individual monomers and heptameric rings in the GroEL tetradecamer. Such allosteric interactions leading to the alteration of quaternary structure of GroEL in the absence of chemical denaturants are important in understanding the mechanism of chaperonin-assisted protein folding by the GroEL-GroES system.     

Single-molecule Observation of Protein Folding in Symmetric GroEL-(GroES)2 Complexes

The chaperonin, GroEL, is an essential molecular chaperone that mediates protein folding together with its cofactor, GroES, in Escherichia coli. It is widely believed that the two rings of GroEL alternate between the folding active state coupled to GroES binding during the reaction cycle. In other words, an asymmetric GroEL-GroES complex (the bullet-shaped complex) is formed throughout the cycle, whereas a symmetric GroEL-(GroES)₂ complex (the football-shaped complex) is not formed. We have recently shown that the football-shaped complex coexists with the bullet-shaped complex during the reaction cycle. However, how protein folding proceeds in the football-shaped complex remains poorly understood. Here, we used GFP as a substrate to visualize protein folding in the football-shaped complex by single-molecule fluorescence techniques. We directly showed that GFP folding occurs in both rings of the football-shaped complex. Remarkably, the folding was a sequential two-step reaction, and the kinetics were in excellent agreement with those in the bullet-shaped complex. These results demonstrate that the same reactions take place independently in both rings of the football-shaped complex to facilitate protein folding.     

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.