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.     

GroEL-GroES cycling: ATP and nonnative polypeptide direct alternation of folding-active rings.

The double-ring chaperonin GroEL mediates protein folding in the central cavity of a ring bound by ATP and GroES, but it is unclear how GroEL cycles from one folding-active complex to the next. We observe that hydrolysis of ATP within the cis ring must occur before either nonnative polypeptide or GroES can bind to the trans ring, and this is associated with reorientation of the trans ring apical domains. Subsequently, formation of a new cis-ternary complex proceeds on the open trans ring with polypeptide binding first, which stimulates the ATP-dependent dissociation of the cis complex (by 20- to 50-fold), followed by GroES binding. These results indicate that, in the presence of nonnative protein, GroEL alternates its rings as folding-active cis complexes, expending only one round of seven ATPs per folding cycle.     

Role of the gamma-phosphate of ATP in triggering protein folding by GroEL-GroES: function, structure and energetics

Productive cis folding by the chaperonin GroEL is triggered by the binding of ATP but not ADP, along with cochaperonin GroES, to the same ring as non-native polypeptide, ejecting polypeptide into an encapsulated hydrophilic chamber. We examined the specific contribution of the gamma-phosphate of ATP to this activation process using complexes of ADP and aluminium or beryllium fluoride. These ATP analogues supported productive cis folding of the substrate protein, rhodanese, even when added to already-formed, folding-inactive cis ADP ternary complexes, essentially introducing the gamma-phosphate of ATP in an independent step. Aluminium fluoride was observed to stabilize the association of GroES with GroEL, with a substantial release of free energy (-46 kcal/mol). To understand the basis of such activation and stabilization, a crystal structure of GroEL-GroES-ADP.AlF3 was determined at 2.8 A. A trigonal AlF3 metal complex was observed in the gamma-phosphate position of the nucleotide pocket of the cis ring. Surprisingly, when this structure was compared with that of the previously determined GroEL-GroES-ADP complex, no other differences were observed. We discuss the likely basis of the ability of gamma-phosphate binding to convert preformed GroEL-GroES-ADP-polypeptide complexes into the folding-active 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.     

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.     

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.     

GroEL/GroES: structure and function of a two-stroke folding machine

Recent structural and functional studies have greatly advanced our understanding of the mechanism by which chaperonins (Cpn60) mediate protein folding, the final step in the accurate expression of genetic information. Escherichia coli GroEL has a symmetric double-toroid architecture, which binds nonnative polypeptide substrates on the hydrophobic walls of its central cavity. The asymmetric binding of ATP and cochaperonin GroES to GroEL triggers a major conformational change in the cis ring, creating an enlarged chamber into which the bound nonnative polypeptide is released. The structural changes that create the cis assembly also change the lining of the cavity wall from hydrophobic to hydrophilic, conducive to folding into the native state. ATP hydrolysis in the cis ring weakens it and primes the release of products. When ATP and GroES bind to the trans ring, it forms a stronger assembly, which disassembles the cis complex through negative cooperativity between rings. The opposing function of the two rings operates as if the system had two cylinders, one expelling the products of the reaction as the other loads up the reactants. One cycle of the reaction gives the polypeptide about 15 s to fold at the cost of seven ATP molecules. For some proteins, several cycles of GroEL assistance may be needed in order to achieve their native states.     

Chaperonin-mediated protein folding: fate of substrate polypeptide

Chaperonins are megadalton ring assemblies that mediate essential ATP-dependent assistance of protein folding to the native state in a variety of cellular compartments, including the mitochondrial matrix, the eukaryotic cytosol, and the bacterial cytoplasm. Structural studies of the bacterial chaperonin, GroEL, both alone and in complex with its co-chaperonin, GroES, have resolved the states of chaperonin that bind and fold non-native polypeptides. Functional studies have resolved the action of ATP binding and hydrolysis in driving the GroEL-GroES machine through its folding-active and binding-active states, respectively. Yet the exact fate of substrate polypeptide during these steps is only poorly understood. For example, while binding involves multivalent interactions between hydrophobic side-chains facing the central cavity of GroEL and exposed hydrophobic surfaces of the non-native protein, the structure of any polypeptide substrate while bound to GroEL remains unknown. It is also unclear whether binding to an open GroEL ring is accompanied by structural changes in the non-native substrate, in particular whether there is an unfolding action. As a polypeptide-bound ring becomes associated with GroES, do the large rigid-body movements of the GroEL apical domains serve as another source of a potential unfolding action? Regarding the encapsulated folding-active state, how does the central cavity itself influence the folding trajectory of a substrate? Finally, how do GroEL and GroES serve, as recently recognized, to assist the folding of substrates too large to be encapsulated inside the machine? Here, such questions are addressed with the findings available to date, and means of further resolving the states of chaperonin-associated polypeptide are discussed.     

Dissociation of the GroEL-GroES asymmetric complex is accelerated by increased cooperativity in ATP binding to the GroEL ring distal to GroES

A kinetic analysis of the ATP-dependent dissociation of wild-type GroEL and mutants from immobilized GroES was carried out using surface plasmon resonance. Excellent fits of the data were obtained using a double-exponential equation with a linear drift. Both the fast and slow observed dissociation rate constants are found to have a sigmoidal dependence on the concentration of ATP. The values of the Hill coefficients corresponding to the fast and slow observed rate constants of dissociation of wild-type GroEL and the Arg197-->Ala mutant are in good agreement with the respective values of the Hill coefficients previously determined for these proteins from plots of initial rates of ATP hydrolysis as a function of ATP concentration, in the presence of GroES. Our results are consistent with a kinetic mechanism for dissociation of the GroEL-GroES complex according to which GroES release takes place after an ATP-induced conformational change in the trans ring that is preceded by ATP hydrolysis and a subsequent conformational change in the cis ring. It is shown that the rate of complex dissociation increases with increasing positive cooperativity in ATP binding by the GroEL ring distal to GroES in the GroEL-GroES complex.     

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.     

Allosteric signaling of ATP hydrolysis in GroEL-GroES complexes

The double-ring chaperonin GroEL and its lid-like cochaperonin GroES form asymmetric complexes that, in the ATP-bound state, mediate productive folding in a hydrophilic, GroES-encapsulated chamber, the so-called cis cavity. Upon ATP hydrolysis within the cis ring, the asymmetric complex becomes able to accept non-native polypeptides and ATP in the open, trans ring. Here we have examined the structural basis for this allosteric switch in activity by cryo-EM and single-particle image processing. ATP hydrolysis does not change the conformation of the cis ring, but its effects are transmitted through an inter-ring contact and cause domain rotations in the mobile trans ring. These rigid-body movements in the trans ring lead to disruption of its intra-ring contacts, expansion of the entire ring and opening of both the nucleotide pocket and the substrate-binding domains, admitting ATP and new substrate protein.     

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.     

Characterisation of a GroEL Single-Ring Mutant that Supports Growth of Escherichia coli and Has GroES-Dependent ATPase Activity

Binding and folding of substrate proteins by the molecular chaperone GroEL alternates between its two seven-membered rings in an ATP-regulated manner. The association of ATP and GroES to a polypeptide-bound ring of GroEL encapsulates the folding proteins in the central cavity of that ring (cis ring) and allows it to fold in a protected environment where the risk of aggregation is reduced. ATP hydrolysis in the cis ring changes the potentials within the system such that ATP binding to the opposite (trans) ring triggers the release of all ligands from the cis ring of GroEL through a complex network of allosteric communication between the rings. Inter-ring allosteric communication thus appears indispensable for the function of GroEL, and an engineered single-ring version (SR1) cannot substitute for GroEL in vivo. We describe here the isolation and characterisation of an active single-ring form of the GroEL protein (SR-A92T), which has an exceptionally low ATPase activity that is strongly stimulated by the addition of GroES. Dissection of the kinetic pathway of the ATP-induced structural changes in this active single ring can be explained by the fact that the mutation effectively blocks progression through the full allosteric pathway of the GroEL reaction cycle, thus trapping an early allosteric intermediate. Addition of GroES is able to overcome this block by binding this intermediate and pulling the allosteric pathway to completion via mass action, explaining how bacterial cells expressing this protein as their only chaperonin are viable.     

Mechanisms for GroEL/GroES-mediated folding of a large 86-kDa fusion polypeptide in vitro

Our understanding of mechanisms for GroEL/GroES-assisted protein folding to date has been derived mostly from studies with small proteins. Little is known concerning the interaction of these chaperonins with large multidomain polypeptides during folding. In the present study, we investigated chaperonin-dependent folding of a large 86-kDa fusion polypeptide, in which the mature maltose-binding protein (MBP) sequence was linked to the N terminus of the alpha subunit of the decarboxylase (E1) component of the human mitochondrial branched-chain alpha-ketoacid dehydrogenase complex. The fusion polypeptide, MBP-alpha, when co-expressed with the beta subunit of E1, produced a chimeric protein MBP-E1 with an (MBP-alpha)2beta2 structure, similar to the alpha2 beta2 structure in native E1. Reactivation of MBP-E1 denatured in 8 M urea was absolutely dependent on GroEL/GroES and Mg2+-ATP, and exhibited strikingly slow kinetics with a rate constant of 376 M-1 s-1, analogous to denatured untagged E1. Chaperonin-mediated refolding of the MBP-alpha fusion polypeptide showed that the folding of the MBP moiety was about 7-fold faster than that of the alpha moiety on the same chain with rate constants of 1.9 x 10(-3) s-1 and 2.95 x 10(-4) s-1, respectively. This explained the occurrence of an MBP-alpha. GroEL binary complex that was isolated with amylose resin from the refolding mixture and transformed Escherichia coli lysates. The data support the thesis that distinct functional sequences in a large polypeptide exhibit different folding characteristics on the same GroEL scaffold. Moreover, we show that when the alpha.GroEL complex (molar ratio 1:1) was incubated with GroES, the latter was capable of capping either the very ring that harbored the 48-kDa (His)6-alpha polypeptide (in cis) or the opposite unoccupied cavity (in trans). In contrast, the MBP-alpha.GroEL (1:1) complex was capped by GroES exclusively in the trans configuration. These findings suggest that the productive folding of a large multidomain polypeptide can only occur in the GroEL cavity that is not sequestered by GroES.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

GroEL-mediated protein folding.

I. Architecture of GroEL and GroES and the reaction pathway A. Architecture of the chaperonins B. Reaction pathway of GroEL-GroES-mediated folding II. Polypeptide binding A. A parallel network of chaperones binding polypeptides in vivo B. Polypeptide binding in vitro 1. Role of hydrophobicity in recognition 2. Homologous proteins with differing recognition-differences in primary structure versus effects on folding pathway 3. Conformations recognized by GroEL a. Refolding studies b. Binding of metastable intermediates c. Conformations while stably bound at GroEL 4. Binding constants and rates of association 5. Conformational changes in the substrate protein associated with binding by GroEL a. Observations b. Kinetic versus thermodynamic action of GroEL in mediating unfolding c. Crossing the energy landscape in the presence of GroEL III. ATP binding and hydrolysis-driving the reaction cycle IV. GroEL-GroES-polypeptide ternary complexes-the folding-active cis complex A. Cis and trans ternary complexes B. Symmetric complexes C. The folding-active intermediate of a chaperonin reaction-cis ternary complex D. The role of the cis space in the folding reaction E. Folding governed by a "timer" mechanism F. Release of nonnative polypeptides during the GroEL-GroES reaction G. Release of both native and nonnative forms under physiologic conditions H. A role for ATP binding, as well as hydrolysis, in the folding cycle V. Concluding remarks.     

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.     

Functional characterization of an archaeal GroEL/GroES chaperonin system: significance of substrate encapsulation

In all three kingdoms of life chaperonins assist the folding of a range of newly synthesized proteins. As shown recently, Archaea of the genus Methanosarcina contain both group I (GroEL/GroES) and group II (thermosome) chaperonins in the cytosol. Here we report on a detailed functional analysis of the archaeal GroEL/GroES system of Methanosarcina mazei (Mm) in comparison to its bacterial counterpart from Escherichia coli (Ec). We find that the groESgroEL operon of M. mazei is unable to functionally replace groESgroEL in E. coli. However, the MmGroES protein can largely complement a mutant EcGroES protein in vivo. The ATPase rate of MmGroEL is very low and the dissociation of MmGroES from MmGroEL is 15 times slower than for the EcGroEL/GroES system. This slow ATPase cycle results in a prolonged enclosure time for model substrate proteins, such as rhodanese, in the MmGroEL:GroES folding cage before their release into the medium. Interestingly, optimal functionality of MmGroEL/GroES and its ability to encapsulate larger proteins, such as malate dehydrogenase, requires the presence of ammonium sulfate in vitro. In the absence of ammonium sulfate, malate dehydrogenase fails to be encapsulated by GroES and rather cycles on and off the GroEL trans ring in a non-productive reaction. These results indicate that the archaeal GroEL/GroES system has preserved the basic encapsulation mechanism of bacterial GroEL and suggest that it has adjusted the length of its reaction cycle to the slower growth rates of Archaea. Additionally, the release of only the folded protein from the GroEL/GroES cage may prevent adverse interactions of the GroEL substrates with the thermosome, which is not normally located within the same compartment.